MaximoFN Content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the categorization of the output (posts, projects, tips plus a total), implying a read-only aggregate, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only, requires no auth, or has any cost/rate behavior.

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 zero filler; every clause conveys the return content and its dimensions.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation rests there, and with zero parameters there is little else the description must cover. It enumerates the content types, which is helpful context; only the read-only nature and sibling routing are 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, though it adds no parameter detail because none exist.

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 (returns a count) and resource (content broken down by type), making the tool's purpose clear as an aggregate/statistics tool. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with list_content or search_content, but the counting semantics are naturally distinct from listing and searching.

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 tool versus list_content or search_content, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for aggregate counts rather than retrieval.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing beyond the bare operation. It does not mention that it is a read-only listing, whether results are paginated, or how results are ordered; the only mitigating factor is that an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 short sentence with no padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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-optional-parameter list tool with a 100%-documented schema and an output schema, the essentials are covered elsewhere. Still, the description omits sibling differentiation, scope of results, and any behavioral note, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 100% and the single optional 'type' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its allowed values and default behavior. The description adds nothing about the filter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('el contenido de maximofn.com'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling search_content, which likely also retrieves content, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_content or content_stats. The agent gets no conditions, no exclusions, and no alternative routing, leaving usage entirely 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that matching is performed against the title and description fields, but does not state that the operation is read-only, or note anything about result limits or permissions. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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. Every word contributes to conveying what is searched and where.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential search scope. It falls short only in not clarifying its relationship to sibling tools and not stating the read-only nature, which are minor given the verb 'Busca'.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'título o la descripción' loosely aligns with the query parameter's target fields but adds no syntax, format, or filtering 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Busca contenido') and narrows the scope to title or description matches, which distinguishes it from generic listing tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings list_content or content_stats, 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_content or content_stats, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the keyword-search phrasing, matching the calibration for a definition with no when-to-use guidance.

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