Mash Prime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits — the sort order ('newest first') and the exact field set returned — which is useful. It omits pagination behavior, result limits, and any auth/visibility constraints for an endpoint that claims to return all posts, so it is only partially transparent.

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 with no filler: verb, resource, scope, returned fields, and ordering all in one pass.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their ordering, which is what an agent needs. The only gap for a no-arg list tool is pagination/result-size behavior, which is minor enough to keep this at 4.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 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 (list) and resource (published blog posts) with scope ('all published') and even names the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from read_post and search_posts by inference. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'all published' scope implies this is the enumerate-everything tool as opposed to the filtered search_posts sibling, but the description never says when to prefer it over search_posts or read_post, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the return format ('full markdown text') and that it operates on exactly one post. It omits error behavior for an invalid slug and any note on large-post/truncation handling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the action and resource; the parenthetical sourcing hint is compact and earns its place. 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, return format, and slug sourcing. Minor missing items are invalid-slug behavior and how content is returned when very large.

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 the schema already documents 'slug' with a concrete example. The description only restates 'by slug' and adds a sourcing hint, so a baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter work.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('full markdown text of one blog post') with scope ('by slug'), and it names the sibling list_posts as the source of slugs. An agent can distinguish it from list_posts and search_posts without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite/workflow hint ('get slugs from list_posts'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with search_posts or state when not to use it, but usage is clear for a single-entity reader.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden (hence the higher baseline credit). It usefully discloses which fields are searched and that results include a snippet, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentences with no filler; the action and match scope are front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return behavior and does so minimally ('matching posts with a snippet'). For a search tool with an unannotated read profile, missing result limits, ordering, and pagination leave gaps.

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 the single parameter is documented ('Keyword or phrase to search for'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful detail that the keyword is matched across titles, descriptions, and full text, but no syntax or partial-match semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search blog posts') plus the match scope (titles, descriptions, full text). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_posts and read_post by being keyword-driven, though it never names or contrasts those 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite list_posts and read_post being obvious candidates for browsing versus reading. The agent must infer that keyword matching is the selecting condition.

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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format (markdown, the site's llms.txt) and the breadth of content (every page), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, response size, or freshness — reasonable inferences for a no-argument info endpoint, but not stated.

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 that leads with the operative word 'Orientation' and packs the return contents into a compact list. No wasted sentences, though the mid-sentence list is slightly dense and the 'when to use it' clause is ambiguous.

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-argument, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and in what format. That is sufficient to invoke it correctly; only peripheral details like size or caching are absent.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this is a parameter-free call, which the schema already establishes.

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 resource (site-level orientation / llms.txt) and states exactly what it returns: who Mash Prime is, what the site covers, and every page as markdown. That is clearly distinct from the content-retrieval siblings (list_posts, read_post, search_posts), though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied: 'Orientation' and the fact that it enumerates every page suggest a first-call/onboarding tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. Note that 'when to use it' reads as a property of the site's content, not guidance for invoking this tool.

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