gematriaCalcule la guematria d'un texte hébreu, mot par mot et au total, selon plusieurs méthodes : hechrechi (standard), gadol (finales 500-900), katan (réduction), siduri (ordinale), atbash. Le nikoud est ignoré. Calcul local, exact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texte | Yes | Texte hébreu (avec ou sans nikoud). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: it is a local, exact calculation, and niqqud is ignored. This provides context about the tool's execution specifics and limitations.
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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the core function and scope, the second adds method details and an important caveat. No wasted words, every sentence 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?
The tool has one well-documented parameter and a read-only annotation. The description covers the purpose, methods, and a key behavioral caveat. While it does not describe the output format, the description is sufficient for a simple, well-scoped calculation 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?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'texte' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that niqqud is ignored, which slightly clarifies behavior but does not add new semantic meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline score is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 calculates gematria for Hebrew text, word by word and total, listing specific methods. This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which offer gematria calculations.
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 defines when to use the tool (for gematria calculations) and what it does, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, the context is clear enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: skill loading, calendar, related links, full-text search, and text retrieval. There is no overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Four of five tools follow the 'sefaria_' prefix pattern, while 'hebrewbooks_skill' deviates slightly. The naming is still predictable and readable, with only minor inconsistency.
Five tools is well-scoped for a Torah study server, covering the essential operations without bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The set covers text retrieval, search, related texts, and daily study schedules, addressing the core domain. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct copy/export), but the workflow is functional.