mediaite_author

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation 'Get' and lists return fields, but does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is purely declarative about the output, lacking behavioral context.

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, front-loading the main purpose and then listing the return fields. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundant or extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 author profile tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields but omits any usage guidance, error handling, or additional behavior. It does not mention pagination or what constitutes 'recent articles'. While the core functionality is conveyed, more context about expected inputs and failure modes would improve completeness.

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 (url and slug) with descriptive comments, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it does not explain when to use url versus slug or how they relate. The schema already documents them, so the description adds no value beyond the baseline.

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 Mediaite author profile, listing the specific fields returned (name, biography, avatar, email, X/Twitter links, recent articles). It distinguishes from article tools by focusing on authors, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools for other sites, which is acceptable given the name.

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 for author profile lookups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mediaite_article or when to prefer url over slug. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned; the intended use is largely left to inference from the tool name.

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