get_talks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but lacks critical behavioral details: what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included), whether it's a safe read operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by highlighting key features.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's idempotent or safe), and usage context relative to siblings. For a list-retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'skip,' 'limit,' and filtering fields, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('talks'), and mentions key capabilities (filtering, pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_posts' or 'get_videos' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'get_posts' and 'get_videos' available, there's no indication of when to choose talks over posts or videos.

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