MojaLab Content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions output format. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., if slug not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the page must be published. Minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, directly conveys the core functionality. Excellent 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?

The description states the output is Markdown content, which is useful without an output schema. However, it lacks details on response structure (e.g., is it a string or object?), error scenarios, or any prerequisites. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more self-contained.

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% with a clear description for the 'slug' parameter. The tool description adds only 'by slug', which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('full content of a published MojaLab static page'), the output format ('as Markdown'), and the identifier ('by slug'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post and list_pages.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single page by slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., list_pages for listing, search_posts for search). No usage exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 provided; description discloses it returns published post content as Markdown. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, error cases, or access to drafts.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key info. No redundant words.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output format for a simple get tool.

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?

Single parameter 'slug' has schema description (e.g., 'hello-world'). Description adds 'by slug' but doesn't enrich beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full content of a published blog post by slug, as Markdown. It distinguishes from siblings like get_page and list_posts.

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?

Implies use by slug for published posts, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tool names provide context, but no direct comparison.

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 full burden for behavioral insights. It only mentions listing published static pages, omitting pagination behavior, return format, ordering, or any authorization requirements. The two parameters (page, limit) are fully described in the schema, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond those.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of page summaries, metadata). It does not address return structure, error handling, or ordering. The tool is simple but still missing key contextual details for an agent to use it effectively.

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% (page and limit are fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional semantic meaning about parameters; it merely restates the resource context.

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 action ('List') and resource ('published static pages on MojaLab') with concrete examples like 'about, tools, ...'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings that deal with posts, tags, or single pages.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The resource distinction (pages vs. posts/tags) is implied, but no alternatives are named or exclusions given.

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 full burden. It states the tool lists 'published' posts but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a listing tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys key information (resource, fields, pagination, optional filter) efficiently. It could be broken into two sentences for better readability, but it is not verbose. No wasted words.

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 tool with pagination and filtering, the description mentions these features but does not specify response structure (e.g., array of posts, total count, next page). Since there is no output schema, more detail would be beneficial. It covers the basics but is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions tag filtering and pagination, but these are already evident. Thus, the description provides minimal additional value, scoring baseline 3.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('published MojaLab blog posts'), and specifies the fields returned (title, slug, excerpt, tags, date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_post' (single post), 'list_pages' (pages), and 'search_posts' (searching), making the purpose 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?

The description notes pagination and optional filtering by tag slug, providing context on when to use this tool (listing with optional filtering). However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'search_posts' for text-based search or mention when not to use it. Still clear enough for selection.

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 must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation (list all) and specifies the output includes post counts. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or limit behavior, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 sentence of 8 words, delivering all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: scope (all public tags), location (MojaLab), and included data (post counts). Missing details like ordering or limits are minor given the simplicity.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by specifying that tags are 'public' and that post counts are included, which goes beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, so 4 reflects the added context.

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 tool lists all public tags on MojaLab along with their post counts. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'tags', with distinguishing qualifiers 'public' and 'with post counts', making the purpose 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?

The description implies the tool is for listing tags, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to avoid it. However, since sibling tools (list_pages, list_posts) deal with different resources, confusion is unlikely. A mention of no equivalent for individual tag details would improve it.

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, the description carries full burden. It correctly states it searches only published posts and matches title and body. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether it supports partial matches. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the key information 'Search published MojaLab posts by keyword'. It is highly concise with no wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description adequately explains what is searched (published posts, title and body). Missing return format or fields, but overall complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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% with both parameters (query and limit) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by keyword', which aligns with the query param. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'published MojaLab posts', specifying that it matches by keyword in title and body text. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_posts (which lists all posts) and get_post (which retrieves a specific post by ID).

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 when needing to find posts by keyword, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for exact ID lookup use get_post) or alternatives like list_posts. No context on prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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