The Wyze Blog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the return is the complete post body in plain text rather than a summary or metadata record, but it says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid slug or about response size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, singular scope, return format, and lookup key all land immediately.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned and how it is keyed. The main gap is failure behavior for an unknown slug and whether the full text could be truncated.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including an example source ('e.g. from list_blog_posts'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'by its slug' restates rather than extends that, and adds no format or validation detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one The Wyze blog post') with scope ('in full') and return format ('plain text'), keyed by slug. This implicitly distinguishes it from the listing sibling by emphasizing a single post, but it never names list_blog_posts as the alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'by its slug' implies the caller must already have a slug, but the description does not say to use list_blog_posts first to obtain one or when to prefer the list tool over this one.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the shape of each item (title, date, author, excerpt, URL), and that search is optional. It stops short of describing page-size defaults or how nextCursor signals the end, though the schema covers the cursor mechanics.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, then the optional filter, then the sibling handoff. No wasted wording. The one small overlap is restating the fields of each item alongside the search behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (title, date, author, excerpt, URL) carries real weight and tells the agent what to expect without a follow-up call. Combined with the ordering note and sibling routing, nothing critical is missing for a simple list 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, cursor, search) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that search filtering is optional but adds no syntax, matching, or format detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists The Wyze blog posts') plus ordering ('newest first') and the fields returned ('title, date, author, excerpt and URL'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_blog_post, which returns the full article.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use get_blog_post with a slug for the full article.' It also frames the optional search filter as the narrowing mechanism, so an agent knows when this listing tool is the right entry point versus the detail tool.

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