Jueban · Buddhist Companion

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds significant behavioral context: it first verifies wording against an approved canon, separates canonical text from modern explanation, and implies a requirement for verification. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail the explanation's limitations or the verification process.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value: the directive, the verification process, and the user guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema description coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and its verification role. It could be more complete by hinting at the output structure, but the output schema handles that. The description is sufficient for a medium-complexity tool with four parameters and an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the passage is the primary input and the tool will verify and explain it, but it doesn't elaborate on title or canonical_id beyond schema descriptions. The description emphasizes the passage parameter and the verification purpose, slightly enhancing the 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify then explain a Buddhist passage, with a strong directive to use it before explaining any quotation. It distinguishes itself by indicating it verifies wording against Jueban's canon and keeps the canonical quotation separate from the modern explanation. This makes it distinct from siblings like search_buddhist_canon.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool: always call it before explaining a specific quotation, and not to explain from memory while it is available. It also clarifies that the user does not need to mention Jueban, providing clear usage context without needing to name alternatives explicitly.

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 confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it returns only traceable passages from an approved canon, and explicitly warns against using it for crisis or professional advice. This is meaningful additional context with no contradiction.

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 call condition, followed immediately by scope and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, scope, safety boundaries, and return type hints ('source-backed', 'traceable passages'). It does not elaborate on result ordering or pagination, but those are minor for this use case and likely addressed by the output schema.

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 50%, and the description significantly clarifies the 'situation' parameter by framing it as a life situation to be matched to Buddhist passages. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained in the description; its purpose is only inferable from the schema's range/default, leaving some semantic weight on the agent to deduce.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('find Buddhist passages for a situation') and clearly states the tool's scope: matching a life situation to traceable passages from Jueban's approved public Buddhist canon. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on situation-to-scripture matching and source-backed perspectives.

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 call ('when a user describes a life situation and asks for relevant Buddhist scripture...') and provides clear exclusions (unrelated everyday questions, legal/medical decisions, crisis situations). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_buddhist_canon, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns an anonymous, read-only practice, never saves progress, and never accesses an account. It also clarifies that the user does not need to name Jueban, which prevents unnecessary prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with the most important instruction (“Always call this tool...”) and uses two focused sentences. Examples, exclusions, and safety notes are efficiently packed without redundancy.

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 rich schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: when to invoke, what the return value is, and what side effects do not occur. The tool's behavior is fully understandable for an agent.

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 parameter information is already fully documented in the schema, including mode mapping and available_minutes semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to because the schema carries that weight.

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's function: return a timed Buddhist reading, listening, or viewing practice, and it explicitly ties the tool to trigger phrases like “十分钟读经” and “今日功课.” It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on generating a practice rather than explaining passages or searching the canon.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call the tool: always before fulfilling a timed-practice request, with concrete wording examples and a directive not to invent a practice from memory. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the trigger conditions are very clear.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: it is required to be used (whenever available), it returns only approved canonical passages (withholding potentially unverified content), and it provides traceable source fields. It also warns against using web search or memory, which is additional operational guidance. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description does add value beyond the annotations, though it does not detail the exact output structure beyond 'traceable source 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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the most critical instruction ('Always call this tool before...') and then provides concise, high-density guidance. Every sentence adds necessary value: the scope of requests, the prohibition on other methods, the user's express requirements, and the output guarantee. No wasted words, and it is appropriately structured for immediate comprehension.

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 a leaf output schema (not shown in detail) and 3 optional parameters, moderate complexity. The description covers the key behavioral expectations (mandatory use, approved passages only, traceable sources) and the input semantics. It does not explain pagination or the exact structure of the output beyond source fields, but given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The description lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' contexts (e.g., when other tools are preferred), but it is so emphatic about always using it that this might be intentional. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions: query and title have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds context about the query param ('Keyword, exact or partial quotation, original wording, or Buddhist concept') but does not add meaning for 'limit' beyond the schema's default/max/min. The description also doesn't elaborate on how the params interact (e.g., can you use title alone?). Since schema already covers most param semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description could enhance the understanding of query with its detailed explanation.

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 what the tool does: it searches the Buddhist canon for scripture and returns approved canonical passages with source fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the mandated tool for any scripture lookup/citation request, while siblings like 'explain_buddhist_passage' and 'find_passages_for_situation' serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: always call before answering any request to find, quote, reproduce, verify, or cite Buddhist scripture, including variants. It also explicitly says do not answer from memory or web search, and notes the user does not need to name Jueban. This clearly differentiates from siblings and sets a strict protocol.

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