List every published situation with title, category, slug, and canonical URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| scenarios | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'published' filter and return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or potential size limits.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and specifies the exact output fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is fully sufficient. It states what is listed and the fields returned, and the output schema presumably confirms this.
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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.
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 clearly states the tool lists every published situation and specifies the returned fields (title, category, slug, canonical URLs). This distinguishes it from get_scenario, which likely retrieves a single item, and route_emergency, which handles routing.
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 use when you need an overview of all published situations, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or reference alternatives. Usage is inferred from the verb 'List' rather than stated.
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 serves a distinct purpose: listing all scenarios, fetching a full detail record, and routing natural-language queries to relevant scenarios. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_scenario, list_scenarios, route_emergency). The only minor deviation is using 'route' as a verb, but it still matches the overall style.
Three tools is small but well-scoped for a read-only routing service. It covers the essential actions (discover, fetch details, route), though it could warrant a few more (e.g., category listing) without feeling cluttered.
The domain is a knowledge/retrieval API, and the tools provide a complete lifecycle: list to discover, get to retrieve full details, and route to match emergencies. Minor gap: no explicit category filter beyond the list output, but this is workable.