roost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists published pages with specific fields, correctly implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, pagination, ordering, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all key information without wasted words or redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential return fields (id, title, URL, view count) and the scope (published by you in this space). It lacks details on return format (list vs. object) and potential limitations, but for a simple list tool it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 and resource: 'List the pages you have published in this space' with explicit output fields (id, title, URL, view count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (publish, unpublish, update_page) which are all mutating operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (to view published pages) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to siblings, so usage guidance is only implied.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a shareable public web page and returns a URL, and mentions the default Markdown format. It does not discuss side effects like perm uniqueness or reversibility, but the core behavior is clearly stated and consistent with expectations for a publish action.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. The second sentence provides clear usage guidance without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, the return value (URL), and the default format. It does not mention error cases or relationships to sibling tools, but for the agent's selection and invocation needs, the information is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning—it only restates that content is Markdown by default, which is already in the schema's format description. No extra semantics for title or content are provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Publish content as a clean, shareable public web page and get back a URL you can give to a human.' It specifies a concrete action (publish), the resource (public web page), and the outcome (URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages, unpublish, and update_page.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever you produce a report, plan, summary, analysis, doc, or any artifact the user should read or share — instead of dumping a wall of text into chat.' It clearly defines the intended use case but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., update_page for editing existing pages).

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the URL effect. It uses 'Delete' ambiguously, leaving unclear whether the entire page is removed or just its published state, and doesn't mention reversibility or permissions.

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 one short sentence with no filler—efficient and front-loaded with the action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details on side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, and the exact meaning of 'delete', making it incomplete.

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 schema has a single 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter or explain that it refers to the page ID, leaving the agent to infer.

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 clearly identifies the action (delete/unpublish) and the target (a published page), with a specific outcome (URL no longer works). It distinguishes from siblings like publish and update_page.

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 implies usage when a page needs to be taken offline, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites.

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 the full burden. It discloses that the update preserves the original URL ('same URL') and targets previously published pages, but it does not explain side effects, error conditions (e.g., if page is unpublished), or whether the update is immediately visible. Some context is added beyond the basic action.

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. No fluff; every phrase adds context (previously published, same URL).

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the format parameter unexplained and does not mention the required id. While it gives context about being previously published and preserving the URL, it lacks necessary details for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'title' and 'content', covering two of the four parameters, but does not mention the required 'id' or the 'format' enum. It also does not clarify whether both title and content are optional together. Meaningful but incomplete.

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 clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (page), specifies the mutable fields (title/content), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the page was previously published, setting it apart from publish/unpublish tools.

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 phrase 'page you previously published' provides clear context that this tool is for modifying pages that are already published, which implies it should not be used for unpublished pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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