get_kimchisushi_agent_entrypointsRoute a Korea/Japan question to KimchiSushi community, guide, or citation-source pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| purpose | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| languages | Yes | ||
| primary_entrypoints | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the tool's scope (Korea/Japan, community/guide/citation pages) but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format or rate limits, so it contributes modest value beyond 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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 the tool has no parameters, a clear output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and scope. The mention of 'community, guide, or citation-source pages' provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 ('route') and resource ('Korea/Japan question to KimchiSushi community, guide, or citation-source pages'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch or search. The title reinforces the 'get entrypoints' action, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 'Route a Korea/Japan question...' gives a clear use case: when the question is Korea/Japan-specific. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (search, fetch) implies this is the targeted entry-point router for that domain.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (search, recent posts, health check, routing), but fetch and get_post_with_comments both retrieve posts, differing only by id type and whether comments are included. This overlap could cause misselection, though the descriptions help.
Naming styles are mixed: bare verbs (fetch, search), get_ prefixed names (get_post_with_comments, get_recent_posts), and a long noun-like name (get_kimchisushi_agent_entrypoints). The inconsistent use of verbs and prefixes makes the pattern unpredictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only content access service. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive sprawl.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for the domain: searching, fetching individual items, listing recent items, and routing to relevant areas. No obvious gaps for a read-only information retrieval service.