Metis · News Radar — Mark Publications Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool clears items from the 'new publications' queue, stamps a read time, and that an empty list is a no-op. These behavioral insights are valuable beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers necessary details.

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 simple tool (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return value. It ties to the sibling tool 'get_new_publications' and explains the effect. No 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?

The schema has 1 parameter 'ids' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning: 'List of new_publications row IDs to mark as read; an empty list is a no-op.' This explains source of IDs and special behavior, compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Mark' and resource 'new publications', and specifies it operates by IDs. It explains the effect: clearing from the queue and stamping read time. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_new_publications' by being the counterpart to mark items as read.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use the IDs returned by get_new_publications', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the workflow: get new publications then mark them read. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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