Kingy Guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real behavior: default filtering to safe sections and public excerpts, spoiler gating, pagination via next_offset, and the composition of clip moments (YouTube watch link at exact second, channel, on-screen check date, moment link, citation). It does not explain what 'evidence caveats' or the content hash imply, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, then layered with spoiler, pagination, and clip details. The sentences are dense and occasionally long, but almost every clause carries information the agent needs; little is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the returned content and clips in detail, and it flags the pagination mechanism. It is close to complete, missing only any hint about accepted URL forms and the meaning of max_chars for a content-heavy read.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all four parameters, but it only fully explains include_spoilers and gestures at offset via the response field name 'next_offset' rather than the input name 'offset'. Neither url (accepted formats/scope) nor max_chars is addressed, so half the parameters remain 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a release-eligible kingy.wiki guide or section') and enumerates what comes back (source links, caveats, hash, clips). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names its siblings (search_guides, list_wikis) to help the agent disambiguate a read-by-URL from a search or listing call.

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 gives concrete conditional guidance: use include_spoilers=true for unclassified full bodies, solution details, and spoiler clips, otherwise only safe/public content is returned. It also adds an exclusion ('does not execute interactive calculators'). It stops short of telling the agent to use search_guides to discover a URL first, so routing among siblings stays implicit.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the default tier, that only the requested tier is returned, that solutions may include clip moments, that missing tiers yield hint_unavailable, and that nothing is generated. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by default, return contents, and the hint_unavailable edge case. Dense but each sentence contributes; only minor redundancy between the tier enumeration and the default statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return contents (tier, source links, evidence limitations, clip moments) and the hint_unavailable outcome. The only notable gap is the unexplained url parameter.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the tier enum values and default, but says nothing about the required 'url' parameter (e.g., that it is the published guide URL), leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Retrieve exactly one authored tier for a published kingy.wiki guide') and narrows scope to a single tier, which separates it from get_guide (whole guide) and list/search siblings. An agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema.

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 use case (fetch one authored tier, default hint_1) but never names an alternative such as get_guide or states when this tool is preferred over it. Usage is inferable from the scoping language rather than explicitly routed.

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds content-level context (what the listing contains, that pagination is supported) but says nothing about ordering, page size behavior, total counts, or rate limits, so it is solidly useful without being 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and what is returned, then the parameter affordances. Slightly dense jargon ('live released', 'authored-hint coverage counts') costs a little clarity but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned components (registry, aliases, caveats, three coverage counts), which is exactly what an agent needs. Only pagination semantics and result ordering remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that the game filter accepts 'a game name or slug' — real added meaning the schema lacks. However, limit/offset are only gestured at with 'supports pagination'; their defaults, bounds and interaction are left entirely to 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 clear verb and resource: 'List the live released kingy.wiki registry' plus the payload contents (aliases, build caveats, coverage counts). It is distinguishable from get_guide/get_hint/search_guides by being an enumerating registry tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings the way a 5 would.

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 only asserts capabilities ('Supports pagination and an optional game name or slug') rather than saying when to reach for list_wikis versus search_guides when hunting a specific guide or hint. No when-not conditions or routing guidance are given.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: spoiler results are omitted by default, hint_only returns neutral hint links instead of ordinary excerpts, and pagination is capped inside the top 30 ranked matches. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotation data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then layered with return shape, hint_only behavior, spoiler default and pagination. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; no filler 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?

For a six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (titles, excerpts, canonical URLs), the hint mode, spoiler handling and pagination bounds. The only omission is limit semantics, so an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it explains query, the game slug, hint_only=true semantics, the spoiler default, and the offset range ('within the top 30 ranked matches', matching offset max 29). Only limit (default 8, max 15) is left undocumented, which is a modest gap given the otherwise strong compensation.

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 verb and resource: searching kingy.wiki game guides, recipes and reference pages, with the query and optional game slug named. It clearly separates this from a fetch-by-id tool conceptually, but it never names the siblings (get_guide, get_hint, list_wikis) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 through the query/game inputs and the hint_only switch, which suggests when the hint mode is appropriate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use search_guides versus get_guide, get_hint or list_wikis, and no when-not guidance.

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