Afromorphism

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 'complete article' and 'canonical attribution' as content hints, but doesn't discuss return format, pagination, or error behavior. 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?

A single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool with strong annotations and a single parameter, the description covers purpose, param semantics, and a content hint. No output schema exists, but 'complete article' sets the right expectation. The tool's simplicity means no additional context is needed.

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 0%, but the description explains that slug is the 'URL slug', giving it semantic meaning beyond a bare string. This compensates reasonably for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't specify slug format or constraints (which are in the schema itself).

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 ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('one complete article') with its key identifier ('URL slug'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_recent_articles (which lists), search_site (which searches), and lookup_glossary (which covers glossary entries).

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 the use case: when you have a specific URL slug and need the full article. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the slug-based scope and sibling context make it clear when this tool is applicable.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the basic list/read operation. It does not specify what 'recently updated' means, what 'canonical' entails, or return format, but with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List the most recently updated canonical articles.') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and earns a perfect score.

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 list tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could benefit from clarifying 'canonical' or noting that 'limit' controls the result count, but these are minor gaps given the schema and title fill some context. Overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate but failed. The schema itself provides type, default, min, and max, which are helpful, but the description adds no semantic value beyond that. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate, a score of 2 is warranted.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'articles', and qualifies the scope as 'most recently updated canonical articles'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article (singular retrieval), search_site (search), and lookup_glossary (glossary), 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a list of recently updated canonical articles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the clear context and distinct purpose, it earns a 4, just short of a 5 because it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the result is either an exact entry or a short list of related entries, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 is concise, front-loaded, and free of extraneous information. It names the action and outcome without repetition.

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?

With a simple one-parameter read-only tool, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavior: it returns an exact entry or a short list of related entries. No further details are necessary for basic usage.

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 0% and the only parameter `term` has no description. The tool description indicates that `term` is a glossary term and implies behavior (exact vs related entries), but it does not explain matching rules, format, or edge cases, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema details.

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 'Retrieve an exact glossary entry or a short list of related entries,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_site by emphasizing exact/related lookups rather than broad search.

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 the tool (for glossary term queries), but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer it over alternatives like search_site or get_article. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that results include attribution and canonical URLs, which is useful output context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or any other operational nuances, so value added is moderate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search') and resource. It is concise, contains no filler, and every word contributes to defining the tool's core function.

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?

With 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain search semantics, filtering options, or result format beyond attribution and canonical URLs, leaving significant gaps in operational understanding.

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 0% and the description provides no information about parameters. It does not explain query, limit, category, contentType, or updatedFrom beyond the schema's type/constraints, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for parameter usage.

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 searches the canonical Afromorphism website, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_article and lookup_glossary by being the general site search, and mention of attribution and canonical URLs adds clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—use this to search across the site—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like get_article or lookup_glossary. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving a clear safety profile. The description adds the specific return fields (URL, endpoint, counts, hash), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching, or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate but not comprehensive context.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then lists distinct output elements. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description lists the key return components, which is sufficient for a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool. The phrase 'content counts' is somewhat vague (unclear which content types are counted), but for a simple status/info tool, the overall completeness is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to document.

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 returns site-level metadata (canonical URL, MCP endpoint, content counts, content hash) using the verb 'Return' and the resource 'site information'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling content tools like get_article or search_site by focusing on site-level status rather than content retrieval.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description implies it is for retrieving site-level information, and the context of sibling tools makes this inference natural, but there is no direct statement of use cases or when to avoid it.

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