Search posts by tag

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

Beyond the strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds operational specifics: it joins multi-word tags with underscores, explains the site's own classification for media types, details no-result behavior (identifying unknown tags or relaxed match counts), and notes that 'random' sorting yields different sets per call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 lengthy but each sentence earns its place: purpose first, then tag formatting, return highlights, classification, and no-result behavior. It is well-structured but could be trimmed slightly without losing value; however, the density of useful information justifies the length.

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 complexity (8 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all operational aspects: what it returns, how tag combinations work, media filtering, sorting, and edge cases. It does not delve into pagination, but the schema already defines page and limit defaults, and the output schema covers return details. Almost complete.

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?

With 75% schema coverage (6 of 8 params described), the description goes further by explaining tag joining (e.g., 'asuka langley sohryu' as one token), media_type classification, and the precise meaning of each sort value ('score' recomputed daily, 'id' newest first, etc.). It substantively compensates for the uncovered 'page' and 'limit' params via the overall context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search rule34.xxx for posts carrying a tag, or several tags at once.' It clearly distinguishes from get_post by mentioning that tool for retrieving full tag lists. This is unambiguous and directly supports selection.

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 explicitly says 'call get_post for the whole list' when full tags are needed, giving a clear alternative. It also clarifies tag formatting and media_type behavior, but does not mention find_tags, leaving that sibling's role unaddressed. Overall, usage context is solid but not exhaustive.

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