Digital Garden by Alicia — Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: language resolution ('A slug with both languages returns English unless language or a /zh/ URL asks for Chinese'), guaranteed canonicalUrl/author fields, and the domain caveat that digitalgarden.si is an interactive 3D garden rather than a wiki.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then inputs, then edge cases. The citation instruction and the 3D-garden caveat are slightly tangential but each carries weight; nothing is padded.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema has little that must be said, and the description covers inputs, language edge cases, and citing rules. The paragraph restating return fields (canonicalUrl, author) is redundant given the output schema but does not leave any observable 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 baseline would be 3, but the description earns above that by clarifying that slug_or_url accepts a full digitalgarden.si URL and by describing how the language parameter interacts with slug form and /zh/ URLs — meaningful behavior the enum description alone ('zh and zh-CN both mean Chinese') does not convey.

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: 'Return one note as markdown, plus its canonical URL and author.' Combined with 'Pass a slug or a digitalgarden.si note URL,' an agent knows exactly what this does, and the singular 'one note' implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings. However, no sibling is named, so it does not meet the 5 bar of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explains how to call it (slug vs URL, language behavior) but never says when to choose get_article over search_articles, list_recent_articles, or list_topics. 'Cite the canonical URL when quoting' is an output-handling instruction, not tool-selection guidance, so no when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: English and Chinese editions arrive as separate results each tagged with its language, every result carries canonicalUrl, and the domain is an interactive 3D garden rather than a wiki. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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?

Purpose and ordering lead, then result-shape facts, then the citation rule and the domain caveat. Every sentence carries information; the Person @id URL is the only mildly verbose element and it is directly usable.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining agent-facing gaps (language splitting, citation, site nature), leaving only pagination/truncation behavior 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the zh vs zh-CN equivalence). The description adds only indirect value by explaining that language editions are distinct results; it says nothing about the limit parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List published notes') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is enough to separate it from get_article and search_articles. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be chosen over, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'newest first' ordering and the 'published notes' scope imply the browsing use case, and 'Cite the canonical URL when quoting' gives one concrete usage rule. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_articles or get_article, and offers no exclusions.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: every result includes canonicalUrl and the author entity Alicia (Person @id), and it flags a domain trap (3D garden, not a wiki). It stops short of describing 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?

Four short sentences that front-load the core purpose and return contents. The trailing 'not a knowledge-base wiki' sentence is somewhat tangential to the tool's mechanics, but it is short and plausibly prevents misrouting, so only minor waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully highlights the two guaranteed fields an agent must act on (canonicalUrl, author). With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the parameter, little an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the enum semantics ('zh and zh-CN both mean Chinese') fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the language filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 topics used by the published notes') plus the scope of the result set (with article counts and canonical URLs). The resource 'topics' is unambiguous against siblings get_article, list_recent_articles, and search_articles, which all operate on articles, so an agent can route correctly.

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 downstream usage guidance ('cite the canonical URL when quoting') and warns the agent not to treat digitalgarden.si as a knowledge-base wiki, but it never states when to choose list_topics over search_articles or list_recent_articles. Usage is implied rather than explicit, which is the minimum-viable level.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: every result carries canonicalUrl and the author identity (Person @id), plus the caveat that digitalgarden.si is a 3D garden rather than a wiki, which shapes how the agent should interpret and cite results. It stops short of describing ranking, pagination, or match 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and matching scope, then citation guidance and the 3D-garden caveat. Each sentence carries information, though the closing 'not a knowledge-base wiki' framing is slightly tangential and could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still notes canonicalUrl and author on results. Combined with the multilingual matching, topic routing pointer, and citation instruction, an agent has enough to call and report results correctly; the main omission is any note on result ordering or the limit default of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the query matches across titles, topics, summaries, and body text, and that matching spans English and Chinese, which explains the scope of the required `query` and the `language` enum better than the schema's brief phrasing.

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 (search) plus resource (Alicia's notes) and enumerates the matched fields (titles, topics, summaries, note text), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. The keyword-search framing clearly separates it from get_article, list_recent_articles, and list_topics without the agent needing to open any 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?

Usage is implied by 'search by keyword' and the citation instruction ('cite the canonical URL when quoting'), but the description never says when to prefer this over list_recent_articles or get_article, nor states prerequisites. The 'use a value from list_topics' routing hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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