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 states the tool performs a liveness check, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what response to expect, error behavior, or whether any side effects occur. This is adequate for a zero-parameter tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information or repetition of the tool name.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose. It could be improved by mentioning the expected return value or how to interpret 'responding,' but for a basic health check, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details because none are necessary. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource ('the API'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like get_talks, get_posts, and get_videos, which retrieve content rather than verify API health.

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: if you need to verify the API is alive, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The context of sibling get_* tools suggests a read-only health check, but this is not stated.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list with filtering and pagination but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of posts') and adds essential qualifiers ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 description mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'skip', and 'limit' in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the general purpose of filtering and pagination.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of posts'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos' beyond mentioning posts specifically, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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?

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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of videos') and adds key features ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'language', 'skip', and 'limit', but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 action ('Get a list of videos') and resource ('videos'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves significant gaps in usage direction.

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