maket_learn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the tool's actions and their effect (e.g., 'topic — read one topic'), making clear it is an informational/learning resource. It does not explicitly state 'read-only', but the actions ('list', 'read', 'overview') strongly imply no side effects. Minor gap is the absence of explicit non-mutating language.

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 well-organized with a clear 'When to use' lead, a clarifying note, and a structured action list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable for an agent.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and available actions. Since there is no output schema, but the tool is a simple informational resource, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by describing each action in plain language ('overview — short operating model', 'topics — list available topics'). It also clarifies the relationship between action and topic. This elevates it to 4.

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 this tool is the first call for agents entering Maket and is a source of operational guidance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the user-facing Help document, and lists concrete actions (overview, topics, topic) that define its scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('first call for any agent entering Maket') and clearly defines what it is not (not the user-facing Help document). It orients the agent to use this as a prerequisite for other Maket tools.

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