Get a hint

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 reveals that content is converted from WordPress HTML to clean Markdown, that results are cached with a 24h TTL, and that refresh_hint_catalog exists to bypass the cache. It does not mention error handling or retries, but for a read-oriented fetch tool, the disclosed cache and transformation behaviors are sufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentences. The first conveys the core purpose and output format; the second addresses the cache and the refresh alternative. No wasted words, and the most important detail (the exactly-one constraint) is front-loaded. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the return: it includes full content converted to Markdown. It also covers the retrieval method (id/slug) and caching behavior. It does not explicitly enumerate all returned fields (e.g., title, metadata), but for a single-hint fetch the description is largely sufficient. Sibling tools like list_hints might convey the expected object shape implicitly.

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 already comprehensively describes both parameters (id and slug) with 100% coverage. The description adds critical value by noting that exactly one of the two is required, which is not reflected in the schema (no required fields). It also clarifies that the slug is without category prefix, refining the schema's generic 'Post slug' definition.

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 single hint by id or slug, explicitly noting exactly one is required. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_hints and search_hints by focusing on a one-shot fetch, and from refresh_hint_catalog by mentioning cache behavior. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'hint' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the exactly-once constraint for id/slug, which guides parameter selection. It also mentions the cache TTL and points to refresh_hint_catalog as the alternative for force updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_hints or list_hints, though the name and 'exactly one' implication make the context fairly clear.

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