Talmud Scroller

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'one line at a time' adds a genuine behavioral clue beyond the annotations, namely that the tool paginates a reading into discrete cards. It does not, however, disclose how many cards exist, what happens for out-of-range 'n', or how 'for voice' affects the output.

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 first clause merely restates the title, and the second sentence is a broad product blurb enumerating unrelated features (plans, search, original text lookup, whole books from the Library) that do nothing to help invoke get_card. Only the fragment 'one line at a time' 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 zero-required-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the inputs. It still leaves the core concept of a 'card' and its relationship to a reading and to sibling get_reading unexplained, which is the main 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is fully documented in the schema (n, date as YYYY-MM-DD defaulting to today UTC, reading id from list_readings). The description's 'one line at a time' loosely corresponds to 'n' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 title/description 'Today's reading one line at a time, for voice' hints at retrieving a single line from today's reading, and the parameter 'n' (which card) supports that reading. However, it never states plainly that it returns one card/chunk of a reading, and it gives no signal to distinguish it from sibling get_reading, which plausibly returns the whole reading. The second sentence is a server-wide catalog blurb ('Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library...') rather than a description of this tool.

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?

Nothing says when to use get_card instead of get_reading, get_today, or search_readings, even though those siblings clearly overlap on the same daily-reading domain. There are no stated prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions – the agent must infer the intended call site from the name alone.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that output is line-by-line content, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, pagination, or truncation for long texts.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the second sentence is a semicolon-run fragment mixing Talmud domains, search, original text lookup and Library books, which dilutes rather than sharpens the tool's scope.

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 single-parameter, fully documented read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on choosing it over its siblings.

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%, and the schema already explains that id accepts either an id from list_readings or a plan name like 'japji'. The description adds no further syntax or resolution semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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 first sentence states a specific resource and scope: a single reading or plan, returned line by line, which separates it from the plural list_readings. The second sentence is muddier, naming adjacent concerns (search, original text lookup, whole books) that belong to sibling tools, so the boundary with get_talmud_text/search_readings is only implied.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_readings, read_book, or get_talmud_text. The clause about reading whole books 'a passage at a time' gestures at a distinction but never names the alternative tool or the condition that selects it.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only scope context — that it returns 'original text' (implying no translation or commentary) and covers both Talmud and Mishnah — with no mention of return format, language, or pagination.

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; the resource scope is stated before the source. Every clause carries information.

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 should ideally clarify what the returned text looks like (Hebrew only, English translation, verse segmentation, commentary inclusion). It signals only 'original text,' which hints at no translation but leaves the response shape largely unspecified.

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%, so the ref format is already documented with tractate/page examples and spoken-form support. The description adds a Mishnah-style example ('Pirkei Avot 1:14') that slightly broadens the understood reference grammar, but is otherwise redundant with 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?

The description names a specific verb-plus-resource: retrieving the 'original text' of a Talmud page, passage, or Mishnah, and names the source (Sefaria). This is immediately distinguishable from list/search/read siblings in the reading-app family, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The intended usage (fetch text for a given reference) is inferable from the name and description, but nothing is explicit.

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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral detail — the output mirrors the app's 'line by line' rendering — but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., no reading for a date) or rate limits.

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 first sentence is tight, but the second sentence is generic product boilerplate listing features (search, original text lookup, whole books) that belong to other tools and do not help an agent call this one. Roughly half the description is waste and is not front-loaded around the actual capability.

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-required-parameter, read-only tool this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what 'line by line' returns and how a missing/empty day is handled, which it does not.

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% and the single optional 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today UTC). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 first sentence gives a specific resource and scope: today's reading, presented line by line, matching what the app displays today. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like get_reading or list_readings, and the second sentence drifts into app-level marketing rather than tool-specific 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should call get_today rather than get_reading or list_readings for a given request.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or scope details, and its 'read a passage at a time' phrasing is more confusing than informative for a list_books 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 first sentence duplicates the title verbatim, and the second sentence packs unrelated-sounding concepts into a semicolon list. It is short but not well structured or front-loaded with a clear action.

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 and no parameters, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and how it differs from siblings. Instead it repeats the title and introduces Talmud/reading/search concepts that more naturally belong to sibling tools like get_talmud_text or list_readings.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 restates the title rather than stating a clear verb, and never says it lists books. It mixes in 'Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup,' which blurs rather than sharpens the tool's purpose. It also does not distinguish list_books from siblings like list_readings or read_book.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_readings, get_reading, or read_book. The description mentions related-sounding topics but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own – no note on result size, ordering, pagination, or whether it enumerates all readings or a curated subset – and its claims about text lookup are not backed by the schema (zero parameters).

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?

It is short, but the second sentence is a run-on feature list mixing 'daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library' that is not front-loaded around a single coherent purpose. Half the text describes capabilities that belong to sibling tools, so the sentences do not fully earn their 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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should make clear what data comes back; 'All curated daily readings and plans' gestures at this but is vague about structure. The remaining text, about search and passage reading, describes functions the schema cannot support (no arguments), leaving the agent's mental model incomplete.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It does not, however, clarify that the absence of parameters means the entire collection is returned.

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 name/title and first sentence ('All curated daily readings and plans') essentially restate each other, so the actual verb+resource is only implied (a listing of readings/plans). The second sentence muddies scope further by describing 'search and original text lookup' and 'read a passage at a time', activities that overlap with siblings like search_readings, get_talmud_text and read_book rather than clarifying what this tool alone returns.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus get_reading, get_today, search_readings, list_books or read_book, all of which appear to overlap with the capabilities named here. By advertising search and passage-reading, the description points the agent toward tasks better served by other tools, making it actively misleading rather than merely silent.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait – that reading continues sequentially into the next chapter/passage – but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or failure behavior.

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?

It is short (two sentences), but the first sentence merely echoes the title and is semantically murky, and the second is a run-on that lists app features unrelated to invoking this tool. The content does not earn its place or front-load the actual operation.

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 an open-world reading tool with several close siblings, the description fails to distinguish read_book's role or route the agent from list_books, get_reading, get_talmud_text, and search_readings. Schema and annotations carry most of the load, but the purpose remains ambiguous.

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% and quite rich (definitions of ref, section, n, and book are all documented, including override and default behavior). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline 3.

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 body does signal that this reads 'whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time,' which points at a read-a-passage verb+resource. But the leading sentence is a confusing restatement of the title about 'follow next,' and the description bundles Talmud daily readings, plans, and search, blurring it against siblings like get_talmud_text and search_readings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The mention of 'daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup' describes the surrounding app rather than telling the agent when to pick read_book over get_reading or get_today.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the result-ordering trait ('best match first'); it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or what an empty/misspelled query yields. This is marginal added value on top of rich 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 definition is short, but the first sentence duplicates the title verbatim and the second sentence is a semicolon-chained list of unrelated capabilities that costs the reader more than it earns. Front-loading happens, but the payload is thin and the clause structure is muddled.

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 ranked search with no output schema, the annotation-covered safety profile plus a stated ordering rule is minimally adequate. What is missing is any sense of scope (which corpora are searched), result shape, or how the mixed 'readings / books / Talmud' phrasing relates to this tool versus its siblings.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'q' with an example ('kindness or Shabbat'). The description adds no syntax, matching-mode, or query-scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opening sentence states a clear verb and resource ('Search the curated readings') plus a ranking behavior ('best match first'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_readings, get_reading, or get_talmud_text, and the trailing clause muddies rather than sharpens the 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?

The second sentence ('Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time') reads like an inventory of adjacent capabilities rather than guidance for this tool. It never says when to use search_readings instead of list_readings, get_reading, or read_book, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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