get_series_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention aspects like authentication requirements, return format, ordering, or pagination. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for the agent to fully predict 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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple (one parameter, full schema coverage), but the description lacks usage context and behavioral details beyond the basic action. Given that there is no output schema, the return format is undefined, leaving some gaps. The description is minimally viable but not fully 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 schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'username' with description 'Velog username'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so per the rubric, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schemas handle the parameter 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 'Get a user's series list on Velog' clearly states the action (get), the resource (series list), and the scope (user's). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings such as get_user_posts (posts vs series) and get_user_profile (profile vs series), making the purpose 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 no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the resource name implies usage for series retrieval, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing this one, leaving the agent to infer from context alone.

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