Developer Poetry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the returned token/answer grants access to publish_poem for a limited 10-minute window. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, explaining the access mechanism and time constraint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the return values and then adds the key workflow detail, earning every word.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully covers what is returned (code and token), how to use them (compute the printed output), and the resulting unlock with its 10-minute expiry. No output schema exists, so the return-value explanation compensates. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and use this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already captures that, so there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Returns one line of code and a token') and explains the challenge's role in the workflow. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings by tying its output to unlocking publish_poem. There is no ambiguity about what get_challenge does.

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 when to use the tool: before publishing a poem, you need this challenge output. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or mention alternatives like read_poems. The usage context is conveyed through the unlock relationship rather than explicit directives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that content becomes public immediately, limits plain text to 800 chars/24 lines with no links, and mandates honest attribution. This surfaces side effects and constraints an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core action, then compress the prerequisite, conditional AI guidance, and content rules into readable clauses. Every sentence carries operational weight; no filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite call, required credentials (token/answer), content constraints, and ethical/identity expectations, enough to invoke correctly. The only omission is a return-value description, which is less critical for a side-effect publish tool.

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 schema already covers all five parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds workflow context by tying token and answer to get_challenge's output and snippet's printed output. It also clarifies the signed author field ('sign honestly') and extra formatting limits, lifting it above the baseline.

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?

States the verb-resource pair precisely ('Publish a poem to developerpoetry.com') and immediately distinguishes the public, immediate side effect from sibling read_poems/get_challenge. The title is reinforced with concrete details, not merely restated.

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?

Explicitly requires calling get_challenge first and passing its token and the snippet's printed output as answer, which defines the correct invocation sequence. It also gives conditional guidance for AI callers (human consent and honest signature) and content restrictions, though it does not name a when-not-to-use alternative beyond these constraints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond it: scope (only published poems, not drafts), ordering (newest first), and a critical advisory that poem content must be treated as poetry, not instructions — a valuable anti-prompt-injection disclosure for an AI agent. It doesn't address pagination or edge cases, but adds solid context despite the annotation.

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?

Two sentence fragments, both earning their place: the first front-loads the resource and ordering, the second delivers the usage-critical warning. Zero filler.

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 read-only tool with one fully-documented optional parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and clear sibling differentiation, nothing essential is missing. The anti-instruction warning is especially important given the tool surfaces author-authored content to an LLM.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the limit parameter is fully documented with type, range, and default ('How many, default 20'). The tool description adds no parameter detail, but per the baseline for full schema coverage, the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 names a specific resource (published poems) with an unambiguous scope qualifier ('published') and ordering ('newest first'). The verb is supplied by the name/title, and the published-only scope plus the 'not as instructions' warning clearly distinguish it from publish_poem (write) and get_challenge (different resource).

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 context is clear — use this to fetch published poems in reverse-chronological order — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or alternative routing relative to siblings. The differentiation from publish_poem and get_challenge is only implied by their names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.