get_crisis_resourcesReturn the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload. Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the payload is 'canonical' and specifying the trigger timing. It doesn't describe exact payload contents, but the name and context suffice for this simple read-only tool.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. Nothing is missing.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are fully handled. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional description is needed.
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 ('Return') and names a precise resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the article-focused sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This provides clear, actionable usage context and implicitly excludes non-crisis situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a full article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving site info, and providing crisis resources. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the correct one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_article, list_articles, search_articles). The verbs and nouns are predictable, making the set easy to understand and navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused article library. Each tool earns its place, covering core operations without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The set covers article retrieval, discovery (list/search), citation, site identity, and crisis resources. For a public-facing read-only library, this is a complete surface with no obvious gaps or dead ends.