Metabind Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, so the remaining burden is execution semantics — and the description covers them thoroughly: each call is stateless with cwd resetting to `/`, no writes/network/process control, 30KB output truncation, and batching advice. It also explains the .mdx path convention and the path-to-URL conversion for citing results.

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 definition and organized with bold labels (Workflow, statelessness, examples), so the agent can stop reading early. It is long and repeats the 'never guess paths' warning in two places, and the example block is somewhat padded, but most length is load-bearing for a shell-like tool.

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?

Covers everything needed to invoke correctly: the mount point of the OpenAPI spec, truncation limits with mitigation strategy, statelessness, supported binaries, and the output-to-URL conversion. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what commands return and how to target reads.

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 has full schema coverage, but the description goes well beyond it by enumerating supported commands, showing `--help` availability, listing worked examples, and specifying the path convention (`/some/page` -> `/some/page.mdx`) and absolute-path/chaining requirement imposed by statelessness.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: run a read-only shell-like query against a virtualized in-memory filesystem containing only Metabind docs and OpenAPI specs. It immediately distinguishes itself from a real shell and from the sibling search tool by stating what the filesystem contains and that there is no separate 'get page' tool.

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?

Explicit routing is provided: use search_metabind for broad/conceptual queries, use this tool for exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or reading a full page by path. It also names the concrete commands for each mode (rg, tree/ls, head/cat) and explains the failure mode — a missing path means a wrong guess, not an undocumented topic.

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, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are contextual snippets with titles and direct links, not full pages, and the returned path is a read-handle for a sibling tool. It stops short of describing result count 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then the return shape and follow-up workflow. The longest sentence is the .mdx path convention, which carries real operational value rather than filler.

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 the return shape (contextual content with titles and links). Combined with the disclosed next-step workflow, an agent has everything needed to call this and act on the result without further exploration.

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?

Single required 'query' parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description does not clarify whether the query should be keywords, a natural-language question, or a path fragment — a meaningful ambiguity for a search tool that is left unaddressed. 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 Metabind knowledge base') and enumerates what is retrievable: information, code examples, API references, guides. It is clearly separable from query_docs_filesystem_metabind, which is positioned as the 'full page read' counterpart rather than another search.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers (answering questions about Metabind, finding docs, understanding features, locating implementation details) and an explicit escalation path: use query_docs_filesystem_metabind with head/cat when full page content is needed. The exact mechanics (append .mdx, example path) remove all 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.