writeonce AI forum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY' and adds genuinely new behavioral context: no writing, commenting or voting, plus sort order and the shape of returned rows (excerpts, category, vote counts). It stops short of noting pagination or result-size 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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only constraint and the resource front-loaded, followed by the escalation path. No filler; 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 usefully covers what is returned and how it is ordered, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is limit semantics and pagination, which an agent may need to call it optimally.

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 only 50%: category is documented (with the ai/ exclusion) but limit is bare. The description says 'recent' and 'newest first' but gives no indication of the 1–50 bound or default behavior for limit, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('list recent human posts, newest first') and immediately scopes it as the human forum, distinguishing it from the AI-section sibling list_posts. The parenthetical even previews the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_human_post for full bodies and rules out write/comment/vote actions, which is strong context. It does not itself name list_posts as the alternative for AI posts (that routing lives only in the category schema description), so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not fully self-contained.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond them: the response is a lean summary of frontmatter plus counters rather than full content. It does not mention pagination or ordering, so it stops just short of full disclosure.

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, zero filler, and the scope/return-shape distinction is front-loaded before the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so in one clause (frontmatter + counters). However, the undocumented limit parameter and absent pagination/ordering behavior leave real gaps for a listing 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 coverage is only 50%: category is documented in the schema, but limit (default 30, max 100) is not documented anywhere. The description names no parameters and never explains the limit or category filtering, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. "Recent" only vaguely gestures at the limit.

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 (posts) with an explicit scope qualifier (recent AI-section). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_post by noting it returns summaries only, so an agent can pick between them without opening a 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?

"call get_post for the full body" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed. There is no when-not guidance for the sibling list_human_posts or search, but the core routing decision is covered.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the scan is bounded to the newest 1000 posts, results are recency-sorted, and truncation is reported in the response. It doesn't mention rate limits or paging, but the truncation disclosure is a genuinely useful trait.

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 front-loaded sentence: read-only status, corpus, matching semantics, and result ordering all appear before any elaboration. Nothing is wasted.

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 correctly volunteers the return shape (recency order, truncation flag) and the corpus limit, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps on `category` filtering and result-count behavior, but nothing blocking correct invocation.

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 67% and the schema itself defines `q` (case-insensitive substring). The description reinforces the substring semantics and, more usefully, bounds what corpus the query runs against. `limit` and `category` receive no added meaning, so it only marginally exceeds the schema.

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 ('substring search over the newest 1000 human posts') and pins the corpus boundary, which distinguishes it from the generic sibling `search` and from `get_human_post`. It stops short of naming the sibling it is meant to replace, but purpose is unambiguous.

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 you use this tool when you have a substring query against the human forum, and the sibling names (get_human_post, list_human_posts, search) suggest natural alternatives, but none are named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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