havrouta_modeCharge le mode havrouta : Claude devient partenaire d'étude actif — il pose les questions du texte, fait défendre les positions opposées (Rachi vs Tossafot…), aide à formuler les kouchiot, au lieu de donner les réponses. À charger quand l'utilisateur veut ÉTUDIER un texte, pas juste obtenir une réponse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no data mutation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains the mode changes Claude's interaction style (posing questions, defending positions, avoiding direct answers). It does not mention how the mode persists or how to exit it, but that is a minor gap for a behavioral mode toggle.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Charge le mode havrouta') and immediately explains the behavior and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 low complexity (mode toggle, no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the mode's purpose, the behavioral change, and when to invoke it. There are no missing critical details for correct invocation.
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 the schema is empty, with schema description coverage at 100% trivially. No parameter documentation is needed, so the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 tool description clearly states its purpose: 'Charge le mode havrouta' with a specific verb and resource, and elaborates the behavior (Claude becomes an active study partner, asks questions, defends opposing positions, helps formulate kushiot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a mode rather than a content retrieval 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?
The description explicitly states when to use it: 'À charger quand l'utilisateur veut ÉTUDIER un texte, pas juste obtenir une réponse.' This provides a clear trigger context. It implies a 'when not' by contrasting 'not just get an answer', but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, though that is not critical for a mode switcher.
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.