maxand98 public corpus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the available output formats, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid slugs, rate limits, or the openWorldHint implication that records are looked up externally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 usefully clarifies the return shape (a citation or a full bibliography in one of three formats). But for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, it leaves the required `kind` and `slug` semantics and the failure behavior unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It does add meaning to `format` (csl-json, BibTeX, RIS) and `target` (publication vs bibliography), but leaves `slug` and `kind` (article vs project) unexplained and does not clarify how they combine.

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 ('Return') and resource ('citation'/'bibliography') and bounds the scope to a maxand98 publication, plus the output formats. What it does not do is note that it is unrelated to sibling tools like get_document or get_claim, though the resource named is distinct enough not to be confused.

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?

'or its complete bibliography' implies the two modes of use but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement about when to choose a single citation over a full bibliography, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by naming what is bundled into the response (article references and source relationships). It does not say what happens when the id does not exist (error vs. empty), which matters for a by-ID lookup with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the returned contents appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description gives a rough picture of the return payload, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It omits the id contract and not-found behavior, leaving the agent to infer both from the schema pattern.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter, so the description needs to compensate and does not — it never mentions the id, its expected format, or where to source it. The only clue to the format is the pattern in the schema itself, which is structured data rather than description value.

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 ("Return") and resource ("one evidence-backed claim from The Punks Are Permanent"), plus the payload scope (article references and source relationships). The resource type alone distinguishes it from siblings get_citation, get_document, and search_site, though it never names them 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?

There is no statement of when to use this over search_site or get_citation, and no note that the id must already be known (or how to obtain one). Usage is only implied by the singular "one claim" phrasing.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes beyond that by disclosing the 'approved'-only scope (unapproved content presumably won't resolve) and that output is clean Markdown, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and output format come first and every word 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?

It correctly conveys that no output schema means the Markdown return format must be stated, and it does so. However, for a 0%-coverage two-parameter tool it leaves the slug/kind semantics and any failure behavior (unknown slug, unapproved document) unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not — it never explains what a slug is, where an agent obtains one, or how the kind enum maps to 'article' vs 'project'. The schema's enum and regex give structure, but the description adds no semantic meaning for either required parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (approved article or project), and the return format (clean Markdown). The phrase 'article or project' clearly separates it from siblings like get_citation, get_claim, and trace_evidence, so an agent can pick it without inspecting schemas.

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 word 'approved' implies the tool only works on approved content, which is an implicit usage constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as search_site for discovery or trace_evidence for sourcing. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are limited to approved content and returned as stable resource URIs with short excerpts.

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 wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 3-parameter search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. However, it leaves gaps around parameter meaning for 'kind' and 'limit' and does not guide selection against sibling lookup tools.

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 33%: only 'query' is documented with a description. The 'kind' enum and 'limit' bounds/defaults exist structurally, but the description does not explain what kind filtering does or how limit affects results, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search approved maxand98 articles and projects.' It also adds return information ('stable resource URIs and short excerpts'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_document, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the search corpus is 'approved maxand98 articles and projects,' which implies scope, but it gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no references to alternative tools like get_document or get_claim.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully clarifies that this is an analytical model rather than real failure injection ('model what survives'), but says nothing about how 'current' stack state is determined under openWorldHint, or what the analysis returns.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the scenario condition front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 simulation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient on intent but incomplete on mechanics — the enumerable failure domains and the meaning of combining them are absent, and the 'current stack' dependency is undefined.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only gestures at 'parts of the stack fail'. It never enumerates the seven allowed failure codes (dns, host, official-api, indexer, rpc, steward, ipfs-gateway) or explains that multiple can be combined and must be unique.

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 gives a specific action ('model what survives, degrades, or becomes unavailable') on a specific resource (the CryptoPunks presentation stack under partial failure). It is clearly separable from the retrieval-oriented siblings (get_claim, get_document, search_site), though it never names or contrasts them 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'model', leaving the agent to guess that this is a resilience/what-if analysis rather than a way to actually induce outages.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description doesn't need to repeat it. The description does add a behavioral trait the annotations cannot: the tool walks from a claim outward to linked records and sources. What it omits is whether the traversal is transitive or one level deep, whether results are paginated or size-limited, and whether missing evidence yields an empty set or an error — all material for a chain-following call.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the operative element (the claim) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the amount of behavior it is compressing, but nothing written is wasted.

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 is the only place return values can be explained, and it gestures at them ('definitive bibliography records and primary or supporting sources') without saying what the response actually contains — record identifiers, both source tiers, or a resolved chain. For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations this is close to adequate, but the return-shape and traversal-depth gaps matter for a 'trace' operation.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden of explaining claim_id, and it says nothing about it. It doesn't mention the required 'cp-claim-' prefix enforced by the pattern, nor what an invalid or unknown claim id produces. The schema's regex gives structural hints, but the description adds no semantic meaning.

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 verb 'follow' plus the object 'a preservation claim ... to bibliography records and sources' conveys a traversal/aggregation operation, which is meaningfully different from the record-fetch siblings. However, 'definitive bibliography records' and 'primary or supporting sources' are domain jargon, and the description never states plainly that it returns the evidence graph/chain for a claim rather than a single document. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot crisply contrast it with get_claim or get_citation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative even though get_claim, get_citation, and get_document all overlap with this space. The only hint is implicit: you need a claim, then you trace it. That leaves the agent to infer whether trace_evidence is a superset of get_claim or a follow-up call.

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