Lynta Public Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's only behavioral claim ('This tool is read-only') merely restates readOnlyHint with no added value. It discloses nothing beyond the annotations about auth needs, rate limits, or behavior for unpublished/invalid URLs.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is wasted space since it duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: 'Markdown page' implies the return format. The remaining gap is that it does not say what happens for a non-existent or unpublished URL, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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% and the schema itself supplies the format (uri) and a concrete example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the qualifiers 'published' and 'canonical', which marginally narrow the accepted URL set but give no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read one published Lynta Markdown page') plus the identifying key ('by its canonical URL'), which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not name the sibling search_public_docs, so an agent must infer the fetch-vs-search split, but the operation itself is 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its canonical URL' signals that you must already have a specific page URL, contrasting with the sibling search tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_public_docs or what to do if you lack a URL, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'this tool is read-only' largely repeats it. The added value is the boundary statement that it does not access customer projects or operate the product, which is genuinely useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to fetch_public_page, which a small addition would close.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the natural-language query. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or length guidance, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published Lynta website pages'), with a scope boundary excluding customer projects and the product itself. It is distinguishable from fetch_public_page by the search vs. fetch distinction, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 ('published website pages') and rules out customer-project scopes, but never says when to use this tool versus fetch_public_page or when keyword search is the right choice over direct page retrieval. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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