Pastes.io

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

Annotations establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds valuable context beyond them: the paste is unlisted, anyone with the link can read it, and free accounts are restricted to the default 1M expiry. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, so not a 5.

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: what it does and returns, then visibility, then account constraints. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema text.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, it covers the return value (shareable link), visibility model, and tier restrictions. Minor gaps remain—no mention of error behavior or password interaction at the behavioral level—but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints the schema does not encode: that 1M is the mandatory default on free accounts and other expiries require Pro. That is real semantic value about the expire parameter.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Create a paste on Pastes.io') plus the outcome ('return its shareable link'). The write verb immediately separates it from get_paste, list_pastes and delete_paste without needing their schemas.

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 context is clear: it is the creation entry point and the expiry tiers tell the agent when certain options are legal. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use get_paste to read it back), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds the user-confirmation requirement and the ownership precondition, which go beyond annotations. It does not say what happens when the slug is missing or unauthorized, which is the remaining gap.

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, both load-bearing: the first establishes the action and its scope, the second carries the irreversibility warning and the confirmation instruction. The warning is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs before acting: scope, identifier forms, irreversibility, and a required confirmation. Only post-call behavior (error or missing-slug handling) is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says 'Paste slug or pastes.io link.' The prose restates the same accepted formats without adding syntax, examples, or resolution rules, so the schema does the work.

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 ('delete') plus resource ('paste'), the scope ('the account owns'), and the accepted identifier forms ('by slug or pastes.io link'). The verb alone distinguishes it cleanly from create_paste, get_paste, and list_pastes in the sibling set.

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?

Gives an explicit procedural rule ('confirm with the user first'), which is the meaningful usage constraint for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling offers an overlapping destructive capability, so little is lost.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the payload contents (email, plan, remaining allowance), telling the agent what information it can actually obtain. It stops short of noting anything about caching or cost of the call, but the context is sufficient.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the returned fields. Nothing is redundant or restated from the title.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the three key pieces of data. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying whether allowance values are counts, percentages, or reset windows, but it is adequate for a simple zero-parameter read.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no attempt to document inputs it does not have.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource (the connected Pastes.io account) and enumerates what is revealed: email, plan, and remaining paste-creation and read/search allowance. This is clearly distinct from the sibling paste-CRUD tools, which operate on individual pastes rather than account-level state.

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 resource: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs account identity or quota information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when not to call it, and no alternative tool cited.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the access-control scope (own/public/unlisted) and the password requirement for protected pastes. It does not say what happens on a wrong password or an inaccessible slug, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return content, then access scope, then the password case. No filler or repetition that isn't doing work.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, access scope and the conditional password case, plus a note that content is returned. Missing only failure-mode behavior (not found, wrong password), which is a modest gap.

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 are already documented, including the slug/link dual format and the password usage. The description only restates those facts ("by slug or pastes.io link", "Supply password") without adding format or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource ("Read a paste") and narrows scope to slug/link lookup, which implicitly separates it from list_pastes. It never names a sibling or explicitly says how it differs from create_paste/delete_paste, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Works for any paste the account can view: its own pastes and public or unlisted ones" gives clear applicability, and "Supply password for a password-protected paste" states the prerequisite for the protected case. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description only needs to add operational traits — and it does: newest-first ordering, 50 items per page, and metadata-only payloads. It doesn't mention whether there is a total count or how paging terminates, which keeps it from a 5.

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, each carrying distinct information (scope/order/paging, query behavior, return shape plus sibling pointer). No filler and the most load-bearing facts come first.

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 only two optional params, no output schema, and covering annotations, the description fills every remaining gap an agent needs: what is listed, in what order, at what granularity of results, and where to go for full content.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by specifying that query searches titles and content rather than some other field set. The page parameter gets no additional treatment beyond the schema's 'Page number, from 1', which is acceptable given full schema documentation.

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 and resource with scope ('the account's own pastes') plus ordering and page size. It also contrasts with the sibling get_paste ('use get_paste to read one'), so the agent can distinguish listing from reading without inspecting schemas.

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?

Names the alternative for retrieving full content (get_paste) and explains how to narrow results with query ('Omit to list everything' is in the schema). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as when search over pastes is unnecessary or when pagination should be avoided.

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