Talmud Scroller

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note, 'for voice'/'one line at a time', implying a short, chunked, voice-friendly payload, but says nothing about pagination boundaries, whether 'n' is capped, or how a missing day behaves.

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 short but not front-loaded or clean: it repeats the title verbatim and even carries the title's double period. The trailing sentence about Talmud, plans, search and whole books is scope-inflating boilerplate that does not describe this tool and dilutes the one meaningful phrase.

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?

There is no output schema, all parameters are optional and fully documented, and annotations cover safety, so the definition is minimally usable. However, with no return-value description and no routing versus sibling tools such as get_reading, an agent lacks enough context to pick this tool confidently.

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 all three parameters (n, date, reading) are fully documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no meaning 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 opening phrase 'Today's reading one line at a time' hints at retrieving an incremental slice of a reading, but it never states the verb ('get/retrieve') or what a 'card' actually is. The second sentence drifts into a server-wide tagline about Talmud, plans, search, and the Library, which describes the whole suite rather than this tool, and it does nothing to separate get_card from siblings like get_reading or get_today.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_reading, get_today, read_book) despite the description gesturing at a broader feature set. An agent has to infer from the name alone that this is the per-line/voice variant of a reading.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'line by line', which hints at line-oriented output, but says nothing about pagination, passage sizing, or what happens with an unknown id.

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 brief, but the second sentence is a semicolon-joined jumble of unrelated content sources that is not clearly front-loaded or scannable. The leading sentence is efficient; the trailing clause is packing rather than structure.

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 lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the core is adequate. However, the overlap with sibling tools is never resolved, leaving the agent unclear on selection, which is the main completeness 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?

Single id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the id source ('/readings') and accepts plan names. The description adds no further meaning about the id format or resolution behavior, 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?

It signals retrieval of a single reading or plan, and names content categories (Talmud readings, plans, books from the Library). But the phrasing 'line by line' and 'read a passage at a time' blurs the boundary with read_book, get_talmud_text, and search_readings rather than drawing a clean line between them.

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 guidance or named alternative. The content categories (Talmud, plans, Library books) hint at scope, but nothing tells the agent why to pick this over read_book, get_talmud_text, or search_readings.

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=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title — no indication of return language (Hebrew/Aramaic vs translation), whether the result includes commentary, or how large passages are handled.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and source front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful detail rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it only says 'original text'. Return format, language, and whether sections/ranges are supported are all unstated for what is a content-retrieval tool.

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 'ref' parameter is documented with worked examples, including spoken forms. The description adds no ref syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (retrieve) and resource (original text of a Talmud page/passage or Mishnah) plus the source (Sefaria), which is arguably clearer than the name alone. However it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as read_book or get_reading, which an agent could plausibly reach for on the same request.

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, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives among the seven sibling tools. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the right call for Talmud/Mishnah retrieval.

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=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — nothing about the default-to-today (UTC) semantics, what 'line by line' output looks like, or error cases, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 opens by duplicating the title word-for-word, then appends a server-wide blurb that is unrelated to this tool. Half the text is redundant or off-topic padding rather than front-loaded tool-specific 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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining what 'line by line' returns and how it differs from get_reading — neither is addressed. For a zero-argument default reading tool with six siblings, the description leaves the agent unable to distinguish it reliably.

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 single optional 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema with format, default, and UTC semantics. The description adds nothing about the date parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 restates the title verbatim with no verb indicating what the tool actually does (fetch? render? return?). The second sentence describes the entire server suite ('Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library'), not this specific tool, so it does nothing to distinguish get_today from siblings like get_reading or list_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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With get_reading, list_readings, and read_book as siblings, the description should say when to use this one over those, but it only offers the phrase 'same as the app shows today' as ambient context.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no indication of what the listing contains or how it behaves with a zero-parameter call.

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 circular, restating the identical phrase at the start and end while wedging an unrelated Talmud feature list in the middle. It is short but wastes its words on repetition rather than front-loading a clear statement of what the tool returns.

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 annotations covering safety, the description should at minimum state what is listed and in what shape. Instead it is ambiguous and re-uses title text, leaving the agent without a clear notion of the return content or its relationship to read_book.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and no schema semantics are being missed.

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 largely restates the title ('The whole books in the Library that can be read a passage at a time') and then repeats it again at the end. It never plainly states that the tool lists available books, and the interjected 'Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup' describes unrelated features rather than this tool's 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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings like list_readings, read_book, or get_reading. The mention of 'search and original text lookup' could even mislead an agent toward search_readings or get_talmud_text. Only a faint implied 'list what's available' usage is present.

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of pagination, result volume, ordering, or what 'all' actually means in the response.

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 semicolon-heavy run-on that enumerates unrelated features rather than front-loading the tool's own scope. Length is fine; the content is not well earned per sentence.

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 is the only place to explain what the list contains (counts, ordering, whether it aggregates multiple collections). Instead it drifts into describing other tools' functionality, leaving the return shape and scope 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The prose mentions filtering-adjacent concepts (plans, search) but no parameter exists for them.

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 merely restates the title ("All curated daily readings and plans") without a clear verb+resource statement. The second sentence mixes in capabilities of sibling tools ("search and original text lookup", "whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time") that belong to search_readings, get_talmud_text, and read_book, muddying rather than clarifying what list_readings itself does.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus siblings like get_reading, get_today, or search_readings. The description enumerates other capabilities without stating any condition or alternative to route the agent, leaving selection to inference.

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=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — sequential reads continue into the next chapter — but says nothing about pagination limits, what a passage contains, or how errors on unknown book ids behave.

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 a verbatim duplicate of the title and conveys no tool-level information. The second sentence is a feature dump that front-loads 'Talmud' and buries the actual action ('read a passage at a time') at the end.

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, 100% schema coverage on all four parameters, and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return format and the meaning of a 'passage'/'section', which for a reading tool would help an agent interpret results.

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 schema already documents 'ref' overriding section and n, book id format, and section defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail 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 second sentence does give a workable purpose — read whole books from the Library a passage at a time — but the leading sentence ('Follow next for the next passage; it carries on into the next chapter') is UI copy repeated verbatim from the title, not a statement of what the tool does. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_talmud_text, get_reading, or get_today, so an agent cannot route confidently among them.

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 lists features ('Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup') but never says when to call read_book versus search_readings, get_reading, or get_talmud_text. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of which sibling to prefer for daily vs. reference lookups.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful context by noting result ordering (best match first), but says nothing about result count, pagination, or return format.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the lead sentence duplicates the title exactly, and the trailing sentence ('Talmud: daily readings, plans, search and original text lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time') is a garbled list that mixes content domains with an instruction fragment, reducing clarity.

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 one documented parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It still leaves the return format, result volume, and scope relative to sibling retrieval tools unstated, which an agent would want before choosing it.

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 q parameter already includes an example ('kindness or Shabbat'). The description adds no syntax, matching, or query-format 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 first sentence states a specific verb (search) and resource (curated readings) plus a ranking behavior (best match first). However, it merely repeats the title verbatim, and the second sentence drifts into content-domain coverage (Talmud, plans, books) rather than distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_talmud_text 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 explicit guidance on when to use this search tool versus the many siblings (list_readings, get_reading, read_book, get_talmud_text). The second clause implies broad content coverage but never states a condition that selects this tool over the alternatives.

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