House Duck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently indicates this is a read operation ('Read') and that the content is 'public', suggesting no authentication or side effects. However, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or access prerequisites.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and provides the key output ('source link').

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but the description fails to cover the locale parameter and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. While it mentions the source link, the return format is not fully specified. The lack of an output schema increases the burden, leaving some 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It conveys that the tool targets 'one... post', implying the slug identifies the post, but it completely omits the locale parameter and its meaning, leaving ambiguity for a required decision.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'the full public text of one House Duck development Blog post', and states it returns a source link. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings list_posts and get_studio.

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 you need the full text of a single post, but it does not explicitly mention when to use list_posts or get_studio instead. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so 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. It discloses that the data is public, which implies no authentication, and lists the specific scope. However, it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, potential errors, or return type details, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated for a simple read operation.

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 lists specific content. Every word adds value, 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what to expect: statement, games, development status, and links. It lacks exact field names or format details, but the scope is clear enough for a simple GET.

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. The empty schema is fully covered, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content rather than parameter syntax, which is irrelevant here.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as the public House Duck studio, listing the distinct content items (statement, current games, development status, canonical links). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_post and list_posts, which are about blog posts.

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 the tool is for studio-related information, while sibling tools are for posts, providing clear context without explicit exclusions. It would be stronger with an explicit 'use this instead of get_post/list_posts' note, but the content list makes the intended use obvious.

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 burden of transparency. It adds context about 'public', 'recent', and language support, which goes beyond a bare 'list posts'. However, it does not disclose any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits) or explicitly confirm a read-only nature, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 purpose and key qualifiers without extraneous detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, language options, and recency. However, it misses some contextual completeness such as what the response contains (e.g., list of posts with metadata) and lacks explicit guidance on limit usage, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 maps the locale parameter to languages (Korean, English, German, Japanese) but provides no explanation for the limit parameter, leaving its meaning and constraints solely to the schema. The coverage is partial, not fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('recent public development Blog posts') and specifies available locales (Korean, English, German, Japanese). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_post (single post) and get_studio (studio details).

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 clear context by indicating the tool lists recent public development posts, implying use when a list of such posts is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_post for a single post, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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