shaarli_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete HTTP endpoints and the per-action parameter applicability, but is silent on auth requirements (Shaarli's API needs a token), error behavior, and the shape of what comes back.

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?

Three terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the endpoints come before the action list. The trailing 'Actions: info, history.' slightly restates the enum in the schema, but it is one short clause.

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?

Annotations plus full schema coverage mean the calling mechanics are well covered, so the definition is close to sufficient. With no output schema, however, an agent gets no sense of what instance info or history entries look like, and the description does not fill that gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'since', 'offset', 'limit', and the 'action' enum with formats and bounds. The description adds only the mapping of these params to the history action, which is useful but marginal against a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read Shaarli instance info and history') and grounds it with the concrete endpoints GET /api/v1/info and GET /api/v1/history, then enumerates the actions. It is clearly distinct from shaarli_links and shaarli_tags by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 states which parameters apply to which action ('History accepts since, offset, and limit'), which is genuine routing help inside the tool. It gives no guidance on when to pick info vs history beyond the endpoint mapping, and no prerequisites such as authentication.

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