risala_get_full_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only names the action without noting whether it is read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The single sentence provides almost no transparency.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'full content feed' entails, whether it returns a list or a single object, any filtering capabilities, or how it differs from related tools like 'risala_get_contents'. More context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (language code, lang query param), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning or usage context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 retrieves a 'full content feed' from 'Risalat Al-Haramain', identifying the resource and source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'risala_get_contents', leaving ambiguity about the difference (e.g., full vs. partial feed).

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool over similar siblings like 'risala_get_contents' or when not to use it. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, filtering, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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