speaker-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'report' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, describe error handling (e.g., missing speaker), or indicate what 'live RNA properties' means. No details on return format or potential mutations.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and it gets straight to the point.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'RNA properties' are, what 'live' means, or what the report output will look like. Since there's no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return, but it doesn't.

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 schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional explanation of the parameter. The schema title 'Speaker object name' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add semantic context, such as how to obtain the name or what format is expected.

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 it reports live RNA properties for a speaker, using a specific verb (report) and resource (speaker). It distinguishes from sibling tools like speaker-create, speaker-list, and speaker-set, which serve different actions. However, it doesn't mention that it's specifically a read-only getter, but 'report' implies that.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like speaker-list or speaker-set. The description implies usage for retrieving properties, but it doesn't explicitly state context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.

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