get_haikus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies a read operation, but there is no mention of return format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. The description adds only the fact that haikus are 3-line poems, which clarifies semantics but not 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?

A single, compact sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the optional filter are front-loaded. Every word earns its place; nothing extraneous.

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 tool, the description is minimal, but the presence of many search-related siblings (search_by_author, search_by_lines) creates ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice. It does not explain how it differs from a general search, nor what output to expect. An agent cannot reliably route to this tool without additional context.

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 input schema already covers the single optional parameter with a description ('Optional author name or partial author name'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description merely echoes 'optionally filtered by author' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool finds 3-line poems (haikus) with optional author filtering. The verb 'Find' and resource '3-line poems' are specific enough to distinguish from get_sonnets, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_by_lines or search_by_author. The purpose is unambiguous but not fully contrasted with siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_by_author or search_by_lines. It implies haiku retrieval but does not state when to prefer this over a broader search. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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