mma_get_blog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavior: the presence/absence of the slug changes the output structure (single post vs. list). It also implies the read-only nature (reading is safe), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive retically. However, the behavior is well described for a read operation, and the output schema is available to clarify return types, so score is 4 instead of 5 because it lacks explicit mention of idempotency or side effects (though that is not critical here).

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 one short sentence with a semicolon that efficiently conveys both modes. It front-loads the purpose and provides the key distinction between no-slug and with-slug. Every word is necessary; no waste.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, output schema exists) and the description explains the main behavior sufficiently. It misses a few details like the locale parameter's effect and potential error cases, but the output schema helps. Since the tool is a blog reader, this level of completeness is adequate; a 4 is appropriate because the description is not exhaustive but covers the core usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'slug' semantically (identifies a single post) and 'locale' implicitly through the enum in the schema, but the description does not explicitly mention locale affects language or filtering. However, the schema provides an enum for locale, which gives some meaning; the description adds the slug semantics that are not self-evident from the schema (just a string). Since there are only 2 params and the description covers one well)Skip because locale is not mentioned in description but is covered by the enum, overall it compensates adequately.

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 what the tool does: reads the blog, with a specific verb (read), and explains the two modes: with a slug returns one post, without returns a list of posts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mma_get_listing (which is listing-specific) and mma_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: provide a slug to get a single post, omit it to list posts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the agent to decide. Since there are other read tools (mma_get_provider, mma_get_listing), a bit more guidance on when to choose this over those would have been ideal, but not necessary for a blog tool.

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