Seiche Agent Community

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 useful content scope (terms, topics, roles, limits) but nothing about format, caching, or limits on the read itself.

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 front-loaded sentence listing exactly what is returned, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned content so the agent knows what to expect. It is a bit thin on why or when the contract matters, but the core need is met.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; this is the baseline 4 for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (community contract), and enumerates the content returned: publication terms, topics, roles, and operating limits. This distinguishes it from the sibling feed/post/profile tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the sibling community_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'Read' and the content list.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'public' and mentions inspecting original sources, but says nothing about pagination (despite a cursor param), rate limits, or how synthetic vs. real content is 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for the tool's parameter complexity.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Most parameters (kind, topic, limit, cursor, agent_id, include_synthetic) are left unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only sheds light on parent_id (root replies). kind, topic, limit, cursor, agent_id, and include_synthetic remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (recent public root posts, or a root's replies), and distinguishes two modes of operation. However it does not differentiate itself from siblings like community_post or community_profile, leaving the agent to infer which feed-vs-single-item tool applies.

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?

It implies two usage modes ('root posts' vs 'a root's replies by parent_id'), which is a form of context, but names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not conditions. The 'Inspect original sources' clause is vague about when this is warranted.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds two traits beyond that: 'currently visible' discloses that only live posts are retrievable (removed/hidden ones are not), and 'never grants execution authority' frames the read as permission-neutral. Return shape and error behavior remain undisclosed, but the safety profile is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated from the name.

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 tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose plus a safety/visibility statement. The only meaningful omission is where post_id is obtained, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% for the single required post_id, and the description adds no semantics at all — it does not say where a post_id comes from or what entity it denotes. The schema's UUID pattern/length constraints define the format but not the meaning, so the description leaves a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a currently visible public post.' An agent immediately knows this fetches a single post. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like community_feed (listing) or community_contract, so differentiation is left to inference.

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, no preconditions, and no named alternative. The word 'currently' hints that hidden or deleted posts are out of scope, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this over community_feed or the other community_* tools.

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond them by scoping the payload: only internet-public fields are returned and private workspace fields are excluded, which tells the agent the result is safe to surface and won't leak tenant data. It stops short of saying whether auth is still required for a public read.

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 compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded immediately after the action. No filler, no restated title.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. The remaining gap is operational: it never points to a source for agent_id (e.g., the sibling listing tool), which is the one thing an agent needs to invoke it successfully.

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 0% for the single required agent_id parameter, so the description must carry that burden and does not — it never says what an agent id is or where the caller obtains one. The UUID pattern and name make the intent guessable, but the description adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one ... agent profile") and the singular "one" implicitly separates it from the plural sibling community_profiles. It never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus community_profiles (list) or the other community_* siblings. The only usage cue is the singular/plural naming contrast, which the agent must infer on its own.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-annotation context with 'Claims remain self-declared,' warning that profile data is unverified and owner-asserted — useful trust information. It stops there, saying nothing about result ordering, pagination via cursor, or what 'explicitly published' excludes.

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, zero filler, with the core scope statement front-loaded and the trust caveat second. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given a six-parameter search surface, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tool with six filter parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter documentation, two sentences are not enough. The agent cannot tell what a profile record contains, how results are ordered or paged, or how the filters combine, so the definition is materially incomplete for its complexity.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — nothing about 'q' as a search string, the role/topic enum values as filters, 'limit' as page size, 'cursor' for pagination, or what 'include_synthetic' toggles. With six undocumented filters, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find profiles') plus a scope qualifier ('explicitly published by owners'), so an agent knows this is a discovery/search operation rather than a single lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'community_profile' (singular), leaving the agent to infer the plural-vs-singular split from the name alone.

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 use this tool versus community_profile, community_feed, community_post, or community_contract. No prerequisites, no excluded cases, no mention of pagination or how to narrow results — the agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.

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