byimprint-site-indexReturn canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes | Current public byImprint guidance in Markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds a mild behavioral nuance with 'canonical,' indicating the returned set is curated and authoritative rather than arbitrary, which aligns with the read-only annotation. No contradiction exists, but no additional behavioral detail (e.g., format, ordering) is disclosed.
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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with the imperative verb 'Return,' followed by a compact enumeration of URL categories. There is zero filler or repetition, and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.
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 lookup tool, the definition is nearly complete: annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists to document return values, and the description states the tool's purpose. The only gap is that it does not reference the sibling byimprint-when-to-use to help the agent choose between them, though this is a minor omission for such a simple 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to document on inputs. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description sensibly focuses on the output nature instead of inventing parameter details.
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 ('Return') and a clearly defined resource: 'canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint.' It enumerates the URL categories, making the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from the sibling byimprint-when-to-use, which presumably provides usage guidance rather than a URL index.
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?
Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer that this tool is for when canonical byImprint URLs are needed, but the description never states when to use it or when to prefer the sibling byimprint-when-to-use. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so the agent must reason from the purpose alone.
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.
The two tools have distinct purposes: one returns resource URLs while the other provides timing guidance. The shared imprint prefix is rather clear but the roles of site-index vs conditions would not be mixed because their descriptions are clearly different.
Both tool names start with the lower-case 'byprint', followed by the hyphen and meaningful compound words ('site-index' and a suitable moment'). The hyphenated multiword style is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the scope is tight: They target byprint's site index and the right time. For the 'intelligence' server this is skinny, though not trivial; two tools may be sufficient for narrow niche use-cases. This is on the borderline of a minimal set.
The server covers basic navigation (site URLs) and the timing aspect of byimprint. The gap is the absence of an explicit resource representation of byimprint's own-son or worse page, but the two tools cover the core. A limited index resource made up the remaining surface.