Search the Workshop

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about Warden-mediated access and the two input modes, but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or other runtime behavior beyond what annotations and schema already imply.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the link-resolution mode without wasted words. It is appropriately compact and scannable.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, a cursor for pagination, and no output schema, yet the description only covers browsing and link resolution. It does not explain sort/cursor usage or pagination behavior, leaving an agent to guess at how to page through results. The annotations and schema partially mitigate this, but gaps remain.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by spelling out accepted link formats and the workshop categories that map to the category parameter. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though query and cursor remain unclear from both sources.

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 names a specific operation—browse/search or link resolution—against a concrete resource (the OPEN//77 Workshop) and lists content categories. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like open77_workshop_install or open77_workshop_status, but its purpose is clear 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?

The description provides clear contexts for use: browsing the workshop or resolving a pasted link, including two accepted link formats. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the usage guidance is direct and sufficient for a search/resolve tool.

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