Loreboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool covers additions/updates and removals/snapshots, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, cursor semantics, rate limits, or what response shape to expect.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's change-sync purpose.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide the full invocation contract. It names the change types but leaves out how pagination/cursor and since work and what the returned changes look like, making it incomplete guidance for a sync operation.

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% for the three parameters, and the description adds nothing about limit, since, or cursor. It does not explain the timestamp format, pagination approach, or maximum limit, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names and schema defaults.

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 states the tool synchronizes additions, updates, snapshots, and removals of public resources, which clearly conveys a change-feed/delta operation. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_resource and search_resources, though the phrase 'synchronize' is less direct than the title's 'Get changes'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over get_resource, search_resources, or list_taxonomies, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites such as needing a last-known timestamp or cursor.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' conveys a read-only operation and 'approved public' signals access restrictions, but it does not mention error behavior, response format, auth requirements, or what happens when a slug is not found.

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 with every word earning its place. The core action, resource type, visibility constraint, and lookup key are all front-loaded without 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?

For a one-parameter read operation the description is minimally viable, but without annotations or an output schema it leaves response shape and error conditions unspecified. Agents can invoke it correctly but may not know what to expect back.

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. The phrase 'by slug' directly explains the role of the only parameter, which is meaningful given the schema only provides type and pattern.

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 ('Get one approved public resource by slug'), clearly identifying a singular lookup operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_resources or list_taxonomies.

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 clearly implies the tool is for fetching a single resource when the exact slug is known, and the words 'approved public' set access context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and conveys that the tool returns a set of vocabularies, but it does not disclose details such as whether results are paginated, sorted, or include metadata. For a simple tool this is adequate but not especially rich.

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 clean, single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the scope with no filler. Every element contributes meaning; 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool lists and the specific vocabularies it returns. It lacks explicit return-format detail, but for a zero-parameter listing tool it is close to 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 input schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any argument semantics; nothing is missing 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('taxonomies'), and enumerates the exact vocabulary types covered (category, capability, audience, pricing, platform, ownership, relationship). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resource or search_resources, which serve different lookup 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 the tool is for retrieving taxonomy vocabularies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or provide any alternatives. The context of a no-parameter listing tool makes the use case fairly obvious, yet there is no direct guidance.

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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'approved public' is a genuinely useful restriction, but the description says nothing about pagination (cursor/limit), result scope, matching semantics, or access requirements. For a search tool with this many filters, the behavioral context is materially incomplete.

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 with the verb front-loaded and no filler, which is efficient. However, for a 16-parameter tool with zero schema-level descriptions, one sentence is under-sized rather than appropriately sized, so the conciseness buys brevity at the cost of substance.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far from complete. There is no explanation of pagination semantics, filter combination logic, what fields resources contain, or when to prefer a sibling tool. This is well below the minimum viable burden for an API of this surface area.

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% across 16 parameters, and the description names no parameters or value constraints. While sort/order are enum-constrained and a few names like q and limit are self-evident, valid values for tag, region, platform, capability, resourceType, verificationStatus, updatedAfter format, and how filters combine are entirely undocumented.

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 specific verbs ('Search and filter') on a concrete resource ('approved public Lorcana resources'), which clearly identifies the operation beyond the bare title. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_resource or list_taxonomies, though the search/filter framing implies a discovery role distinct from single-resource retrieval.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not point to get_resource for fetching a specific known resource, mention list_taxonomies for valid filter values, or explain when search_resources is the right entry point. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'search.'

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