Palimpsest — censorship observatory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and how to identify signals (via list_signals). It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but the overall context is sufficient for basic use.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description 'e.g. 'ooni-gfw'' for the name parameter. The description adds only the context of 'by name,' which is already implied by the parameter name. No additional parameter-level detail beyond 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 clearly states it retrieves the full latest reading of one signal by name, explicitly referencing list_signals for sibling differentiation. It also outlines the output contents: 'raw payload with generated_at, method scope and upstream sources.'

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 implicitly guides usage by saying 'see list_signals,' suggesting that tool is for listing signal names before using get_signal. It does not explicitly mention gfw_reading but provides directional 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the data sources but does not mention if the data is cached, real-time, or any potential side effects. As a read operation, no destructive behavior is implied, but lack of transparency reduces utility.

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 concise sentence that packs important context (both layers, data sources). It is front-loaded with the main point. However, it could be split for readability, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema and simple parameter structure, the description gives the core concept. However, it lacks information about the return format or structure, leaving the agent to guess. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% trivially. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reading the current Great Firewall status combining two specific data sources (OONI and Generative Firewall Index). The verb is implied, and the resource is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_signal or list_signals, which could be clearer.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signal or list_signals. The context of combining both layers is implied, but no explicit when/when-not criteria are given. The tool is likely for a comprehensive overview, but this is not stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live signals with one-line descriptions and source URLs, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any potential side effects. For a parameterless list, this is adequate but could be more explicit about the response structure.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. Efficiently front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description is complete. It tells what the tool returns and its role (starting point). Sibling tools are differentiated through the description's context.

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, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 that the tool lists every live censorship and information-control signal Palimpsest publishes, with one-line descriptions and source URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_signal (likely for a single signal) and gfw_reading (a different tool) by being the list/entry point.

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 phrase 'Start here' explicitly advises the agent to use this tool first in a signal-related workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear for a simple list command with no parameters.

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