xi.pe

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

While annotations provide no safety hints (all false), the description compensates by disclosing key behaviors: the paste is publicly readable, the 2 MiB limit with rejection (not truncation), the return fields, and the one-time delete_token that is the only deletion mechanism. It even advises passing the token to the user verbatim.

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 about 150 words across five sentences, but every sentence adds value—purpose, usage triggers, size limit, return values, and delete_token caution. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses examples effectively, though slightly verbose for its purpose.

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's complexity (3 params, output schema present) and the richness of annotations (all false), the description fully covers usage, behavioral constraints, and return expectations. It even addresses the delete_token's one-time nature, ensuring an agent understands the full workflow without needing external docs.

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%, with each parameter having a detailed description (ttl format, long security rationale, content limits). The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the size cap and mentioning the delete_token (return field). Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Store UTF-8 text at xi.pe and get back a short URL anyone can read.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools (delete_paste, read_paste) by describing the creation action.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use it when text has to leave the conversation...' with concrete examples like sharing a link for text, offloading long diffs/stack traces, and reaching other agents/sessions. It also specifies the size limit and rejection behavior, offering clear boundaries for when to use.

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?

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining the necessity of the delete_token for ownership proof, and noting that deletion can occur before the paste's natural expiration. The destructiveHint annotation is confirmed. However, the description could also mention if the operation is irreversible or if it affects other users, but given the annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is largely 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?

The description is two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and timing constraint, the second explains the key prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has only 2 required parameters and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the action, timing, and authentication requirement. It could be more complete by describing what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message) but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable.

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. The description adds value by explaining why the delete_token is required ('provides proof of ownership') and clarifies that code can be a short or long code or full URL. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score of 4.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a xi.pe paste'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_paste and read_paste. It also adds the important context that deletion can happen before expiration, which clarifies the scope beyond a simple delete.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to delete before expiration) and what prerequisite is required (the delete_token). It implies when not to use it—if you lack the token, you cannot prove ownership—which is a clear exclusion criterion. No sibling tool is mentioned, but the token requirement effectively distinguishes it.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no state changes, and the description aligns with that. The description does not add extra behavioral details (e.g., error behavior, rate limits), but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable and not contradictory.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It succinctly encapsulates the tool's purpose and input flexibility.

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 simple read operation, the description is complete. It provides the necessary input identification and the action, and no output schema exists, so return details are not required. It fully serves its purpose.

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 parameter 'code' is well-described in the schema (6-char code, 23-char long, or full URL), and the description reinforces this. The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds clarity about accepted formats without redundancy.

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 fetches the text of an existing paste, distinguishing it from sibling tools (create_paste, delete_paste). It also specifies the input format (code or URL), making the action and target 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 usage when a paste code or URL is available, and the note about 'a user or another agent just handed' suggests immediate retrieval. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the read nature is obvious against create/delete, so the guidance is clear enough.

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