Penwright — writing-craft library, guide metadata, and magazine

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, and the description adds useful boundaries: it returns only card-level metadata, not paid body content, and only for live guides. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler, and the payload restriction appears early. The truncated slug list is a minor inefficiency but still serves a 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the resource scope, content boundary, and known slugs; only explicit not-found/error behavior is absent, but that is largely inferable from 'one live guide'.

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 for the single slug parameter is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds a partial list of known slugs, which is helpful but not a complete enumeration, so it improves but does not substantially elevate meaning beyond schema.

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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('one live guide's metadata'), and enumerates the exact fields returned, which clearly distinguishes get_guide from its siblings get_library_work, get_magazine_piece, and search_library.

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 intended use is clear: pass a known guide slug to retrieve card-level metadata. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'known slugs' and 'never the paid body/depth content' wording gives sufficient context for an agent to select it over search or content-access tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by clarifying what is returned (bibliographic record and, conditionally, a thesis) and flagging that not every work is profiled. This conditional return behavior is not captured in the annotations.

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. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 getter with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the core behavior and conditional thesis handling are adequately conveyed.

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%, with libraryId already documented as 'Library catalog id (e.g. libce6efaa49e6f0175).' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one writing-craft library work's bibliographic record and (when profiled) its thesis'), making the tool's function precise. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_guide, get_magazine_piece, and search_library by naming the unique content type it targets.

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 implied by the singular resource and required libraryId parameter, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. There is no statement like 'use search_library instead when you don't have an ID' or 'use get_guide for guides.'

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the content is 'ungated,' matches the human page, and which slugs are known, without contradicting the annotations.

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 carry all the essential information with no filler. The resource and returned sections are front-loaded, and the known-slug note is a compact, useful inclusion.

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-only retrieval tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is complete: it identifies the resource, the content shape, the access properties, and the valid slug. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only required parameter is a string slug, so the schema already defines meaning. The description adds the concrete known slug value and its hyphenated format, which is genuinely helpful beyond the schema's generic 'Magazine piece slug.'

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('one published magazine piece's question, per-writer sections, and editor's coda'), distinguishing it from sibling library/guide tools by resource type. The detail 'same content the human page renders' makes the scope clear.

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 is clear this tool is for fetching a single magazine piece by known slug, and the 'Known slugs (1)' line implies it should be used only when the slug is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_guide, get_library_work, or search_library, or what to do when the slug is unknown.

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?

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: with no filters it returns the first page, and query/tag act as substrings that can be combined. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 communicates the action, resource, filters, and default behavior without any filler. Every phrase 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?

For a simple optional-parameter search tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key default behavior and filter combinations well. It does not explain pagination beyond 'first page' or how an agent would request later pages, which is a minor gap.

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 already documents all three parameters with clear case-insensitive substring semantics, limit bounds, and defaults. The description only lightly echoes that query relates to title/author and tag to property tag, adding no meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 action, 'Search or list', on a clearly defined resource, Penwright's writing-craft book library, with explicit filter dimensions (title/author substring and property tag). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which retrieve specific items rather than searching or listing.

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 browsing or filtering the library, and it notes the no-filter default behavior. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over the sibling get_* tools or when to prefer direct retrieval, leaving the usage decision mostly to inference.

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