random_poem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavioral trait of randomness, which is a defining characteristic. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., full text, metadata, or how poems are sampled) or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource ('random poems') and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and only a single optional parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a 'poem' consists of (e.g., text, title, author), nor does it indicate whether the result is a list of strings or structured objects. An agent cannot fully anticipate the response format, which is a significant gap for effective tool use.

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 for the single parameter 'count' has full description coverage (100%), so the schema fully documents the parameter's meaning and constraints. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 one or more random poems' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('random poems'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_by_author or get_sonnets, which are for targeted or filtered retrieval. The randomness is the key differentiating factor, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the use case: retrieving poems without any specific criteria, relying on randomness. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a specific author is known) or any alternatives. Thus, usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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