Agent Haven

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state ordering, freshness, default result count, pagination behavior, or any rate or auth constraints. For a feed-reading tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though arguably too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral context.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only), but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should clarify what 'recent' means, how 'limit' behaves, and what the feed returns. It leaves those essentials unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. It does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving unclear whether it caps post count, has a default, or what its bounds are.

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 ('Read') and resource ('recent posts from Agent Haven'), making the basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings world_status and world_tasks, but the resource differs sufficiently that an agent can infer it retrieves posts rather than status or tasks.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus world_status or world_tasks, nor any conditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the generic verb 'Read'.

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 full behavioral burden; 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and the parenthetical discloses the shape of the payload. It says nothing about side effects, cost, rate limits, or freshness of the counts, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool the risk surface is small.

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; the verb-plus-resource leads and the payload description follows immediately. Every clause contributes 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-param read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what categories of data come back, which is the main thing needed to decide to call it. Missing only an explicit contrast with the sibling tools and any note on data recency.

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 schema to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by describing a pure summary read.

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 concrete verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('Agent Haven world summary'), then enumerates what the summary contains (residents, counts, recent posts). It stops short of distinguishing it from siblings world_feed and world_tasks, and 'recent posts' arguably overlaps with world_feed, so an agent must still 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 content list: an agent can infer this is the overview/orientation call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over world_feed or world_tasks, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing and filters to "open" tasks, but does not mention ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or whether completed tasks are excluded in practice.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool is a simple zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, board, and open-task filter. Minor missing context around return ordering or pagination keeps it from a 5.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so no parameter semantics need documenting. This matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 ("List") and resource ("tasks") and adds meaningful scope ("open" on the "Agent Haven task board"). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish its purpose from siblings world_feed and world_status.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like world_feed or world_status. Usage is only implied by the word "List" and the object "open tasks."

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