list_articlesPaginated list of articles from Psychiatry for Teens. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 30, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds that results are paginated and include specific fields (title, slug, summary, URL). This is useful behavioral context, though ordering and total-count behavior are not disclosed. No contradiction with 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?
Single sentence that immediately states operation and scope. All words add value; no fluff. Front-loaded 'Paginated list' makes purpose clear.
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 low-complexity list tool with fully described optional parameters and a readOnly annotation, this description is adequate. It names the resource source and return fields, compensating for the lack of output schema. No critical gaps for invoking the 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?
Schema covers both page and limit with clear descriptions (1-indexed page, max results per page, default 30, max 100), so coverage is high. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the pagination concept, but the schema handles it. Baseline 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?
Clearly identifies a paginated listing operation for articles from Psychiatry for Teens. The verb 'list' and resource 'articles' distinguish it from siblings like get_article and search_articles. Also describes returned fields, reinforcing purpose.
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?
Description implies use for browsing or fetching all articles in pages, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over search_articles or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The pagination hint provides limited context.
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.