Given a person's need or situation, return the best next action and destination URL (hire KaiCalls, join the Kai CMO waitlist, try Build with Kai, read the AI receptionist overview, read the writing, or subscribe). Returns ranked suggestions; the caller decides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Describe the person's situation or goal in plain language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns ranked suggestions and the caller decides, but does not mention if it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific actions. No redundant or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and lists possible recommendations. However, it does not explain the ranking logic or the output format, which could be useful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'need', is fully described in the schema with the same text as in the description. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With schema coverage at 100%, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: given a need or situation, it returns the best next action and destination URL from a specific list of options. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools which retrieve specific content (e.g., get_catalog, get_post) rather than providing recommendations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by listing possible actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison with siblings or guidance on when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: catalog overview, personal profile, single blog post, products list, reading log, writing list, and action recommendation. No apparent overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern with 'get', 'list', and 'recommend' verbs, making it predictable and easy to understand.
Seven tools is ideal for this personal portfolio server, covering profile, products, blog, reading log, and a recommendation action without being too sparse or overwhelming.
The tool surface covers the main aspects of the personal brand: profile, products, writing, reading log, and a recommendation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all categories or tags, but filters partially address this.
