Guide to CUB cloud APIs in Lampa

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot express: no network calls of its own, pure snapshot read, no auth required to invoke, and markdown rather than raw JSON output. These are real operational facts an agent needs and none contradict the hints.

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 dense but well-ordered paragraph: identity/scope first, then the non-substitute warning, then a topic-by-topic parameter map. Every clause carries routing or semantics information; nothing is filler.

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 7 parameters, 5 enums, a required topic, and an output schema already in place, the description covers the remaining risk area — which params apply to which topic and what happens when they don't — and confirms the return format. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by defining the cross-parameter applicability matrix per topic (e.g. `endpoint` requires `path` and ignores `category`/`search`), which the flat schema cannot express. Example values like `bookmarks/dump` reinforce the format.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Document how Lampa talks to CUB from source') and immediately scopes what it is not (a substitute for cub.rip/developer). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `list_catalog` topic=mirrors/socket, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 enumerates each `topic` value and states exactly which parameters it honors (catalog→category/search, endpoint→path, auth→auth_focus, models→model, sync→none, timeline_hash→example). It even states the failure-tolerance rule ('silently ignored, never an error'), which is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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