devplane-site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds little beyond that safety profile. It does clarify that lookup is by slug, which is useful, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling or empty results; output schema likely covers return details.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the parameter source, and an example. 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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description, annotations, and schema together cover how to call the tool, where the slug comes from, and what the operation returns. Sibling tools are in context, making the definition complete.

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 100% and includes an example slug, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds the crucial instruction that the slug comes from the list_faqs catalog, providing source context beyond the schema description.

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 and resource: 'Get one FAQ entry by slug'. The phrase '(from the list_faqs catalog)' ties it to a sibling and makes the retrieval mechanism explicit, clearly differentiating it from the list_* 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 names list_faqs as the source of the slug, telling the agent that get_faq is for retrieving a single catalogued entry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative exclusions, but the sibling reference gives practical context.

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, and the description reinforces a read-only listing operation. It adds detail about output contents (full side-by-side dimension table and verdict) and the source URL, going slightly beyond the annotation-only picture without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds necessary specifics. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or 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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and sibling tools clearly distinct, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics burden for the description. The empty schema plus clear description leave no ambiguity about invocation inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('comparisons from https://devplane.dev/compare'), and enumerates the comparison categories, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_faqs and get_faq by targeting a distinct content type.

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 establishes that this tool returns every comparison with full tables and verdicts, setting context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling covers the same resource, so the usage boundary is effectively clear.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the source URL, a fixed count of 10 items, and the subject coverage, which helps set expectations about the corpus being finite and static.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently packs the URL, count, and topic scope into a dash-separated clause. Every word adds value and no unnecessary detail is present.

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 parameters, an output schema available, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining selection-relevant context: the exact source URL, corpus size, and topic areas. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description reinforces that the tool takes no arguments and returns the entire corpus, which is the baseline expectation for a parameter-less tool.

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 ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('every question/answer pair from https://devplane.dev/faq'), and provides count and topic coverage. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_faq (single item) and list_comparisons/list_pages (different content).

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 phrasing 'List every question/answer pair' implies the tool is for retrieving the full FAQ corpus, so usage is inferable. However, it never explicitly mentions when to prefer get_faq for a single entry or compares against list_comparisons/list_pages, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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 and destructiveHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by limiting results to public, crawlable pages and explicitly excluding the secret-gated internal editor. 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the output fields, and states the key exclusion. Every clause carries information with no 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 list tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It states the resource, scope, returned fields, and an important limitation, while annotations cover the safety profile.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead notes what the output will contain, which is useful when no input schema burden exists.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List devplane.dev's public, crawlable marketing pages' and enumerates the page categories and returned fields. The explicit exclusion of the secret-gated internal editor further clarifies scope and distinguishes it from a general page-listing tool.

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 intended context is clear from the scope: it lists public, crawlable marketing pages, not gated content. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_faq or list_comparisons, but the resource categories make the appropriate use fairly obvious.

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