maket_learn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return medium ('structured Markdown inside MCP text content') and enumerates the operational areas covered (workflow, HTML composition, chartes, collections, review loop, install, etc.). It also clarifies it is not the UI Help document. It does not state read-only status, permissions, or side effects, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the 'When to use' guidance, then the return format, then a compact action list. The middle paragraph is dense but each clause names a distinct operational area an agent needs to know is covered; only the 'not the user-facing Help document' aside is arguably marginal.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover return values and behavior, and it does (Markdown in MCP text content, per-topic scope). The audience parameter's semantics are left to the schema, and nothing tells the agent how large or expensive the returned topics are, but for a zero-required-parameter guidance tool this is close to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of each action ('overview — short operating model', 'topics — list available topics', 'topic — read one topic with topic=<name>'), which clarifies the action/topic relationship the schema only hints at.

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 states a specific role — the first-call onboarding/guidance tool for agents entering Maket — and explicitly disambiguates from the user-facing Help document. The verb+resource is clear ('learn how to operate Maket'), though it never names or contrasts with sibling tools like maket_doc, which could plausibly be confused with a documentation tool.

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?

It gives a direct usage instruction ('first call for any agent entering Maket') and lays out the three actions with what each returns, so an agent knows which action to pick. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' statement, which is minor given how unambiguous the first-call framing is.

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