Get current Hashnode user and their publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the response structure (fields and publications array), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., unauthenticated requests) or pagination. Given strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence core purpose, a bulleted list of returns, and two concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, but it omits edge cases like empty publications or authentication errors. These are minor for such a straightforward tool, so a slight deduction is appropriate.

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 100% for the single parameter (response_format), with the schema already providing its description and enum. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it stays at the baseline 3 without needing to compensate.

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 'Returns the authenticated user's profile and a list of their publications', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'Use this first to discover your publicationId(s) before creating or listing posts.'

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to discover your publicationId(s) before creating or listing posts', providing clear when-to-use context. Examples such as 'What is my publication ID?' and 'List my Hashnode blogs' further illustrate appropriate use cases, making it easy to select this tool over siblings.

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