KIRUPA Tutorials & Web Development Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the return format (ready-to-use Markdown links and summaries), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about ranking, matching quality, or behavior on an unrecognized topic.

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-formed sentence that front-loads the accepted inputs and closes with the output contract — no filler. It is efficient, though it packs two distinct ideas into one clause without separate structure.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers input modes and the return format adequately. Minor gaps remain: no note on result ordering/relevance, and no mention of what happens when no related tutorials exist.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents limit (range/default) and the topic_or_url dual mode. The description only echoes the accepted input forms already stated in the schema, adding no new syntax or format guidance.

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 names a specific verb (find) plus resource (related kirupa.com tutorials) and states both accepted input forms (topic/concept or existing URL/slug) and the output shape (Markdown links with summaries). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_tutorials or get_tutorial, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 the dual input modes — use a topic phrase for discovery, or a URL/slug to expand from an existing tutorial. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_tutorials or get_tutorial, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context ('clean Markdown text and extracted code blocks'), but says nothing about error behavior for unmatched identifiers, output size, or truncation.

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 the action and resource first and qualifying detail after; no filler. The inline parenthetical example is slightly redundant with the schema's own examples, preventing 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload (full tutorial text plus extracted code blocks, or code-only when flagged). Parameters and safety annotations are covered, so only edge-case behavior (bad slug, oversized tutorials) is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (identifier, code_only) are already fully documented, including the accepted identifier forms. The description largely restates the schema's identifier list and adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so baseline 3 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 verb (Fetch) plus the concrete resource (complete Markdown text and extracted code blocks of a kirupa.com tutorial). This clearly separates it from search_tutorials, list_sections, and find_related_links, 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?

Usage is implied — fetch full content once you already have an identifier — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. that search_tutorials should be used first to discover a slug. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds return-content context (tutorial counts, sample articles) which is useful given no output schema, but says nothing about pagination beyond limit, rate limits, or how large the section catalog is.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the default mode and appends the conditional mode. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

Both invocation modes, the two parameters, and the shape of the primary return (counts and samples) are covered without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around pagination limits and what 'sample articles' contains, but nothing blocks a correct 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 100% — limit's default/max and section's slug examples are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 verb (list) and resource (topic sections / tutorials within a section) with the exact site named. The dual-mode behavior ('all sections with tutorial counts and sample articles' vs 'tutorials inside a specific section') lets an agent distinguish it from get_tutorial and search_tutorials without opening any schema.

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?

Sets a clear condition for each mode: omit section to browse the catalog, supply section to drill in. It doesn't name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use search_tutorials when you know keywords'), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (FTS5 + BM25) and the returned payload (canonical URLs, clean Markdown URLs, matching section headings, excerpts), which materially helps an agent interpret results.

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 what is searched and over what corpus, followed by return-shape details. Slightly dense with the parenthetical FTS5/BM25 and the topic list, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return fields, and all three parameters are fully specified in the schema. It does not mention result ordering beyond BM25, truncation, or behavior when nothing matches, which are minor remaining gaps for a read-only search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, query, and section are already documented with ranges, defaults, and an enumerated section list. The description's topic enumeration loosely maps to the section filter but adds no new syntax or semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 verb+resource (full-text search over 420+ kirupa.com tutorials/articles) and enumerates the covered topic domains, which no sibling covers. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_tutorial (fetch one), list_sections (enumerate sections), and find_related_links (link discovery).

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 'using full-text search' and the query examples, so keyword/concept lookup is clearly the intended trigger. However, the description never names the alternatives (get_tutorial, list_sections, find_related_links) or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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