latestNewest public listings, newest first. Each carries its votes and adds. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readonly/idempotent/safe behavior; the description adds useful non-obvious context by stating each listing carries votes and adds and that ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review listed bots. This goes beyond the annotation-only safety picture, though it omits details like pagination or limit behavior.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, the included fields, and an important caveat; the most important information is front-loaded. There is no filler.
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?
The description covers the resource, ordering, item fields, and the lack of vetting, which is strong for a simple read-only tool. However, with no output schema and no description of `limit`, the agent is left to guess a parameter that may affect invocation and result size.
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%, and the description never mentions the sole `limit` parameter. Nothing in the description compensates for the schema's silence, so the agent gets no help understanding what limit controls.
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 identifies the resource ('public listings') and the ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like most_voted. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'fetch,' so it stops just short of a top score.
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 implies its use case: anyone wanting the newest public listings. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as most_voted or search_bots, nor does it state any exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching one listing, listing newest, listing categories, listing most voted, and searching. No two tools appear to do the same thing, making misselection unlikely.
get_bot, list_categories, and search_bots follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but latest and most_voted are descriptive fragments without a verb. This breaks the consistency enough to be noticeable.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only listing and search service. Each tool covers a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The surface fully covers the core domain: retrieving individual listings, exploring newest and top-voted content, searching, and browsing categories. No create/update operations are needed for a public listing directory, so there are no significant gaps.