List Geervanee's published Fun with Sanskrit games (daily quiz, crossword, word search) — title and category, not the questions/answers themselves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | prasnottari (quiz), padavinyasah (crossword), or padanusandhanam (word search). Omit for all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only operation (listing) and specifies the output scope (title and category, not content). This adds important behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't discuss pagination or error conditions. For a simple listing tool, this is good.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and clearly states what is excluded. No wasted words.
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?
Tool is simple, lone optional parameter, no output schema. Description covers purpose, output scope, and excludes content. Could arguably mention that it returns a list (implied by
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 already has 100% coverage: category has a description with valid values and 'Omit for all.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies when schema is comprehensive.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Geervanee's published Fun with Sanskrit games', and specifies the output includes title and category but not content. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list_articles, list_courses) by naming the specific resource type and scope.
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 for listing games, with an explicit mention of what it returns (title/category) and what it excludes (questions/answers). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the sibling tools clearly cover other resource types, so context is clear. No exclusions stated, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable.
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 distinct purpose: about provides an overview, list_* iterates over separate content types (articles, courses, games), read_article retrieves a full article, and subscribe handles email notifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a uniform lower_snake_case pattern, with clear verb prefixes ('list_', 'read_', 'subscribe', 'about_'). The naming is intuitive and consistent across the set.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a content-oriented server. Each tool covers a necessary action (overview, list each category, read an article, subscribe) without excess or redundancy.
The main workflows (browsing articles, courses, games; reading an article; subscribing) are covered. However, there is no way to retrieve details for a specific course or game beyond the list responses, and no search functionality, which could be minor gaps in a content discovery context.