Mettakin

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by noting the result includes the experiences that answer the target experience, which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose any error behavior, permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's main output without repetition or filler.

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 read tool with one parameter, the description broadly explains the return value (full text plus answering experiences). However, with no output schema, it lacks specifics about the response structure, data types, error conditions, or pagination if any. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 for the undocumented id parameter. It vaguely implies that id selects which experience by saying 'one experience', but it does not explicitly define id as the experience's unique identifier, nor does it specify expected values or format. Minimal compensation for a fully undocumented 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?

The description clearly states the resource (an experience) and what is returned (full text plus answering experiences). The verb is provided by the title 'Read an experience', and the content implicitly distinguishes it from search_experiences and list_topics, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 alternatives. It does not state that the id parameter is required or that this tool should be used when you already know the specific experience ID, nor does it mention when to prefer search_experiences or list_topics. The only hint is the required id in the schema.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool safe, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns all topics with experience-mention counts and exposes slugs. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but for a parameterless listing tool this is a minor gap.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the downstream instruction 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 simple, read-only, parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what metric is included, and how the output connects to sibling tool search_experiences. No output schema is present, but none is needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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, so the schema fully covers inputs; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description adds useful context about the returned slug field and its role in downstream filtering.

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 ('list') and a concrete resource ('every phenomenon and practice') and names the output metric ('how many experiences mention it'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling search tool by positioning list_topics as the source of slugs.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the returned slugs to filter search_experiences, establishing a clear downstream use and differentiating the listing tool from the search tool. It does not formally state when not to use it or mention get_experience, but the intended context is clear.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the tool's safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that by disclosing return fields (titles, authors, short excerpts, links) and the newest-first ordering, which is especially valuable given there is 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?

The description is a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and search dimensions, then gives the output contract and ordering. It contains no filler and does not redundant restate the title.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, search inputs, result fields, and ordering, which is enough for most invocation decisions. It is slightly incomplete regarding how multiple optional filters combine and what the default result count is, but those are minor gaps given the optional parameters and schema constraints.

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?

Three of the four parameters have schema descriptions, and the prose maps 'words, phenomenon or practice' to the query, practice, and phenomenon parameters. However, the description adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify the limit parameter's semantics; only the name and min/max constraints communicate its purpose.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Find meditation experiences' with the exact search dimensions (words, phenomenon, practice). It also specifies the returned content, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_experience and list_topics.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to search experiences by word, phenomenon, or practice, and receive summarized results. It does not explicitly contrast with get_experience or list_topics, but the intended use case is readily apparent.

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