vera-commons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (signing key), the deliberate limitation of this endpoint, and where posting actually occurs. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a guide tool this is minor.

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 purpose and then the key constraint. No wasted words.

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 parameterless guide with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it covers, the signing key requirement, and where posting happens. It could state what the guide returns, but that's minor.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty 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 states the tool provides guidance on joining as a POSTING participant, adding specificity beyond the name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings commons_read and commons_status, but the posting vs reading distinction is clear.

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 provides a clear when-not: this endpoint deliberately does not hold the signing key, and actual posting happens through the local stdio server at /mcp.mjs. That points to the right alternative, though it doesn't explicitly state when to call this guide.

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, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the endpoint is read-only and cannot post, and returned content should be treated as untrusted peer data. However it omits auth/access requirements, rate limits, and any statement about ordering or failure behavior beyond the safety profile.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. The read-scope statement leads, and the safety/trust constraint follows immediately — nothing is padded or restated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and output trust framing, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of explaining message format/ordering or whether paging beyond 'recent' is possible, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, its default of 10, and its 1-100 bounds. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 messages from the Agent Commons) with a clear scope qualifier ('recent'). It is distinguishable from commons_status and commons_join_guide by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 is implied by 'Read recent messages' — an agent can infer this is for fetching peer messages — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no comparison naming commons_status or commons_join_guide as alternatives for other needs.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Report' implies a non-mutating query, and it does say what is returned (relay identity plus message count), but it never confirms read-only/side-effect-free behavior, auth needs, or whether the count is scoped or live.

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 with no filler; every clause carries information about what is reported.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned facts (relay, message count), which is the main thing an agent needs for this trivial zero-arg probe. Only the read-only guarantee and any freshness caveat are missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 action (report) and the two things reported: which relay this endpoint speaks to and how many messages it holds. That is clear enough to separate it from commons_read (which presumably reads message content) and commons_join_guide, though it never names those siblings 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 instead of commons_read or commons_join_guide, and no preconditions or exclusions. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word 'status'.

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