maket_learn

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

Describes the tool as a read-only knowledge resource with no side effects, listing actions overview, topics, and topic. Although no annotations are provided, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's behavior and safety profile for its intended use.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear 'When to use' header, a brief definition, and a bulleted list of actions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no required parameters, all enums) and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage. It explains actions and parameter defaults, though it does not specify output format or content of topics.

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 good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining each action (e.g., 'topic — read one topic with topic=<name>') beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as the first call for agents entering Maket and provides operational guidance. It distinguishes itself from user-facing help and sibling tools by specifying its role as a learning resource. The actions are listed with brief explanations.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: first call for Claude, Codex, or Gemini agents entering Maket' and that it is a source of guidance for using MCP tools. It also clarifies it is not the user-facing Help document. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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