get_sonnets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Find' and accurately describes the core behavior, but it does not disclose return shape, result format, matching semantics, or any limitations. This is adequate for a very simple lookup but not richly transparent.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the key behavior plus optional filter are stated immediately.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to make a correct call. It lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral nuance, but nothing essential to a basic invocation is missing.

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 fully describes the only parameter, 'author', as optional and accepting partial names. The description adds little beyond saying the results are filtered by author, so the schema already carries the parameter-meaning burden.

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 action ('Find'), the resource ('14-line sonnets'), and the optional author filter. It is specific enough to distinguish from haiku-finding tools like get_haikus, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from author or line-count search 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 implies usage: use this when you want 14-line sonnets, optionally narrowed by author. However, it never mentions alternatives such as search_by_author, search_by_linecount, or search_combined, nor does it state when this tool should be preferred over them.

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