uc_forum

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-activity first and include each thread's last-post date, letting an agent judge board liveness.

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 dual-mode behavior is front-loaded in the first paragraph and the args are kept in a compact list. A few phrases are slightly verbose but nothing displaces the important 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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs to supply mode selection, ordering semantics, and param meaning — all of which it does. It stops short of stating pagination boundaries or total thread counts, but that gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does define all three params and their roles. Slug comes with concrete examples ("rust", "valorant", "anti-cheat-bypass"); page and limit are explained only tersely and their default values are left to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (browse UnknownCheats by subforum) and clearly splits the two operating modes: no slug = list all subforums, with slug = list that board's threads. It never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. uc_search or uc_thread), so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

It gives actionable usage context — call the no-slug form once to discover which board a topic lives in, then pass a slug to inspect threads. That covers when to use each mode, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative sibling tools for overlapping needs.

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