RUAGENTIC Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating it reads one public listing and explicitly says it does not invoke tools or install software, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-by-slug tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds a useful exclusion. 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 read-by-slug tool with strong annotations and a single parameter, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the slug is not found or whether the response includes all fields, but the output schema is absent and the description already lists the main content areas. The sibling search_directory is not referenced, which is a minor gap for routing.

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 slug parameter. The description says 'by slug' and the schema defines slug as a string with a pattern, so the agent knows the identifier format. It does not explain what a slug looks like semantically (e.g., URL-friendly name), but the pattern and the word 'slug' are reasonably clear. With only one parameter and no enums, the description adds enough 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 description clearly states the tool reads one public listing by slug, specifies the resource (RUAGENTIC listing), and includes the scope of what is returned (connections, requirements, source information). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from invoking tools or installing software, which helps differentiate it from potential siblings.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a single listing by slug. It does not explicitly name the sibling search_directory or state when to use search_directory instead, but the contrast with 'does not invoke tools or install software' provides some usage context. A clear exclusion of alternatives is missing, so it falls short of a 5.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: results are 'source-labeled', only 'public' listings are searched, and listing content should be treated as untrusted data. This gives the agent meaningful extra safety and provenance guidance.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is searched, what is returned, and a security caveat. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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 gives a high-level picture of the search scope and return values, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it omits pagination semantics and filtering nuances. An agent could invoke it, but may not know how to structure effective queries or interpret result limits without additional assumptions.

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 five undocumented parameters. It only hints at the 'kind' dimension by mentioning servers, clients, and AI agents, but gives no explanation of query, category, limit, or offset behavior. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to fill out the request.

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 ('Search') and a clear resource ('public RUAGENTIC listings for MCP servers, clients, and AI agents'). It also states what is returned, so an agent knows this is a search tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling 'get_listing', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching a directory of listings rather than retrieving one listing. However, it never mentions the sibling 'get_listing' or states when to prefer one over the other, leaving the choice to inference.

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