meta-stamp-pockets

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: requires Bearer token, returns paginated results, does not retrieve content. These details go beyond the schema and help the agent understand non-obvious constraints.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically structured. Every sentence adds value—usage guidance, boundaries, auth, parameter details—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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: purpose, when to use, auth requirements, parameter details, and an important behavioral constraint (no content). It is fully 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: limit defaults to 50, max 200, and creator_id uses the creator's unique identifier. This aids correct parameter use beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to list all available content pockets, optionally filtered by creator. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending search_pockets for specific topics and pull_content for retrieving content.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (browsing the catalog or viewing a creator's pockets) and when not (for specific topics, use search_pockets; for content retrieval, use pull_content). This helps the agent choose correctly.

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 fully discloses behavioral traits: authentication needed (HTTP 401 otherwise), metered charge ($0.001–$0.25), royalty logging. It does not mention rate limits or idempotency, but for a read-like operation this is acceptable. No contradiction with 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 paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, auth, cost, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning. No wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('full content payload with provenance metadata'). It covers auth, cost, parameter details, and usage boundaries. Lacks explicit mention of error cases beyond 401, but the tool is simple and the description is fairly 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds only redundant detail for pocket_id and query. It provides context about the hex format but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Pull licensed creator content from a specific pocket by ID.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'Do NOT use for browsing or discovery — use search_pockets or list_pockets instead.' This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'retrieve verified, provenance-tracked content for generation, RAG, or training purposes.' It also states when not to use and provides alternative tools. Auth requirements ('Requires a valid Bearer token') and cost implications are mentioned, offering clear 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for authentication, the return structure (matching pockets with IDs, titles, etc.), and pagination via limit. Missing details like rate limits or sorting order, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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 thorough but slightly long. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear sentences. Could be more concise, but each sentence adds necessary information, so it remains effective.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter details, return values, and relationships to sibling tools. No gaps are evident.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining that query accepts natural language, creator_email is case-insensitive exact match, and limit defaults to 10 with a max of 50. This goes beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the Meta-Stamp Pockets catalog by keyword, creator email, or content category. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it does not retrieve content and directs to pull_content for that purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (discovering licensed content before pulling) and when not to use it (retrieving content is pull_content's job). Also specifies prerequisites (Bearer token) and parameter constraints (at least one of query or creator_email).

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