Mandarin The Wild Reader

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context on top: it discloses the exact read scope (name and email) and explicitly bounds what is not exposed (private passages, saved words), which matters for an agent reasoning about data exposure. It stops short of describing failure behavior when no account is connected.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by prerequisite and scope exclusions; no filler. 'before saving' is the only slightly opaque fragment.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields. Combined with the prerequisite and scope exclusions, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the not-connected error case is unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument, single-object read.

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 ('Show the connected MTW account') and names the exact fields returned (account name and email). It is clearly distinguishable from the word-level siblings (inspect/read/save_mandarin_word), though the abbreviation 'MTW' is only expanded in the title, not the description.

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 phrase 'before saving' implies a pre-flight check ahead of save_mandarin_word, and 'Requires account connection' gives a prerequisite. However, it never names the sibling explicitly or states when not to call it, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds the useful edge case that a null card means no applicable Mandarin target. It also restates card contents (pinyin, meaning status, parts, alternatives) that the output schema likely already documents, which caps the credit slightly.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then constraints, then return semantics, then the negative boundary. Dense and largely waste-free, though the enumeration of card fields partially duplicates the output schema.

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 small read-only lookup with full annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: offset counting rules, passage-preservation requirement, and null-result meaning. Only the optional title parameter is left unaddressed, which is minor.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the description meaningfully adds to the offset parameter by warning to count Unicode code points rather than UTF-16 units, the classic source of off-by-N bugs. It reinforces the 'exact passage' constraint on text but says nothing about the optional title parameter, which neither schema nor description explains.

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 ('Inspect the Mandarin word or pattern at a Unicode code-point offset in the exact supplied passage') and names the return artifact, MTW's contextual word card. The closing clause 'Does not save or grade learning' implicitly separates it from save_mandarin_word.

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?

Gives real calling conditions (preserve the original passage, count code points, null means no applicable target), but never says when to choose this over sibling read_mandarin. The agent must infer the split between inspection-with-context and plain reading.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the text is kept verbatim, the interaction is anonymous and nothing is saved. It could go further on length limits or what the reader returns, but the privacy and fidelity guarantees are the substantive additions.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its interaction model, then the privacy guarantee, then routing and exclusions. No sentence is redundant against the others.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with two parameters, one required. The description covers purpose, interaction, privacy, routing and exclusions; only the optional 'title' parameter's effect on the viewer is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50%: the required 'text' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the verbatim/no-rewrite rule that the description also echoes. The optional 'title' parameter is undocumented in both places, and the description adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus resource: 'Open an interactive reader for a Mandarin article excerpt, message or subtitle passage.' It also names the sibling it is not for ('Use inspect_mandarin_word for one specific word'), so an agent can discriminate it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the triggering condition (a passage 'the user supplies'), the alternative for a different need (single-word lookup via inspect_mandarin_word) and explicit exclusions ('Does not fetch links or transcribe media'). Use and non-use cases are both spelled out.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool re-inspects the word through MTW, requires an explicit learner request, preserves text/context/title, uses one operation UUID for idempotent retry, and does not mark the word known, grade recall, or save the whole passage. These are meaningful behavioral constraints and non-effects that help an agent invoke the write operation safely.

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 front-loaded with the core save action and the explicit-request condition, then adds only operationally relevant details about ambiguity, preservation, UUID reuse, and excluded effects. It is dense but well structured, and no sentence is redundant.

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 non-read-only, idempotent save tool with seven parameters and limited schema descriptions, the description covers the key usage trigger, prior inspection dependency, ambiguity handling, idempotency, and side-effect boundaries. It is still incomplete on required offset semantics and does not describe success/failure behavior, but the destination check and confirm constant are partly covered by the schema.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry more meaning. It clarifies text as the exact supplied passage, choice as a sense ID selected from offered choices, title preservation, and operation as a reusable UUID. However, it does not explain the offset parameter, which is required and central to selecting one word from the passage, nor does it clarify confirm or destination beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: save one word from the exact supplied passage to the connected MTW Backpack. It also distinguishes scope from adjacent actions by saying it re-inspects the word and does not save the entire passage, so an agent can tell this is a targeted save operation rather than a read or inspection.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use only when the learner explicitly asks to save the word. It also gives a special rule for ambiguous meanings, passing only the sense ID the learner selected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as inspect_mandarin_word or read_mandarin, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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