Get constrained Richgo public API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'constrained' but does not explain constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication, allowed paths). The behavioral traits are vague.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with core action (constrained GET wrapper) and usage context. However, brevity sacrifices important detail, preventing a higher score.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the full scope of the tool's behavior, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 50% (path described, params not). The description does not add meaning for params beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The param structure remains unclear.

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 it is a constrained GET wrapper for public /api/... endpoints, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions its utility for mapping newly discovered site services, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are more specific (e.g., richgo_get_scores).

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 usage during exploration ('mapping newly discovered site services'), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings. It lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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