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 include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the payload content (988/911/Crisis Text Line). It doesn't describe side effects, but none are needed for a read-only return. Credit for adding what the payload contains beyond the annotation.
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 and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns and when to invoke it. The sibling tools are irrelevant, and the context is complete for an AI agent to select and call it appropriately.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). No additional semantic value required.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'), clearly distinguishing it from the article-related sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This is a clear, actionable usage guideline, and since no alternative crisis tool exists, it fully addresses when to use.
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 single article, listing, searching, citing, getting crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_, cite_). The style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library, covering core retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
The set covers the main read-only workflows: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing articles, plus crisis and site info. Minor gaps exist, such as no category browsing or related-article suggestions, but these are not critical for the domain.