DarkFunnels documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds material context beyond them: the filesystem is sandboxed and documentation-backed, each call is STATELESS so cd does not persist, output is truncated to 30KB, and no writes/network/process control are possible. It also preempts a common failure mode by explaining that a nonexistent path means a bad guess, not an undocumented topic.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity and the read-a-page rule, then workflow, then examples. It is long but nearly every line carries operational value; the only waste is mild repetition of the `rg -C 3` targeting advice, which appears both in the examples block and the truncation paragraph.

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?

For a single-string, shell-like command tool with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what the sandbox is, how to discover real paths, statelessness, supported commands, truncation limits, batching strategy, and how to convert `.mdx` paths back to URLs. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

The single `command` parameter is fully described in the schema, but the description adds substantial meaning: the supported command list, `--help` availability, absolute-path/batching conventions, and concrete example invocations. This is well above the baseline-3 expectation for 100% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("run a read-only shell-like query against a virtualized in-memory filesystem containing ONLY the DarkFunnels documentation") and explicitly negates the most likely misreading ("NOT a shell on any real machine"). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling by declaring "there is no separate 'get page' tool," so an agent can tell it apart from search_dark_funnels without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: start with the search tool for broad/conceptual queries, use this tool for exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or reading a full page by path. It names the alternative (search tool) and the condition that selects each, plus per-command selection guidance (rg to search, tree/ls for structure, head/cat to read).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return shape (contextual snippets with titles and direct links) and the follow-up workflow for full page content. It stops short of mentioning result limits or ranking behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage conditions, then alternatives and return shape. The trailing parenthetical with the `.mdx` example is verbose but directly actionable, so it earns its place; slightly tighter phrasing would reach a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what search returns and how to get full content afterwards. For a two-parameter read-only search tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the language default of 'en'. The description adds no meaning to `query` (no syntax, operators, or phrasing guidance) or to `language` beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search across the DarkFunnels knowledge base") and enumerates the content types returned (code examples, API references, guides). It also differentiates itself from the sibling query_docs_filesystem_dark_funnels by scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (answering questions about DarkFunnels, finding documentation, understanding features) and names the alternative for full page content with concrete mechanics (`head`/`cat` on the path with `.mdx` appended, plus a worked example). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/effect profile is covered. The description adds useful outcome context ('so the docs team can fix it') but says nothing about confirmation, rate limits, or what happens to submitted feedback, so it only marginally extends the structured data.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by trigger conditions and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, triggers, exclusions, and target audience completely. Annotations handle the mutation/effect profile, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are well documented in the schema itself (path format, feedback content). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Report a problem with this documentation site') and makes the target explicit ('feedback about the documentation content itself'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling tools query_docs_filesystem and search_sorsa_developer_platform, which retrieve rather than submit.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the triggering conditions ('incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example') and adds clear exclusions ('not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant'). This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement.

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