Metabind Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: statelessness, cwd reset to `/` each call, no variables/history carried over, 30KB output truncation, and no writes/network/process control. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 concept and bolded sections, and every block (workflow, commands, statelessness, examples) earns its place for a complex virtual shell. It is on the long side, but the examples and warnings are pragmatically necessary 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?

With no output schema, the description covers return behavior (truncation limits, agent should prefer targeted rg/head), path conventions (.mdx mapping), and the OpenAPI mount point. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and there is a single `command` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating command semantics and providing concrete syntax examples (rg -C, cd && chaining, piping to jq), giving real meaning about how the parameter is used.

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 states a precise verb+resource+scope: a read-only shell-like query against a virtualized, in-memory filesystem containing only Metabind docs and OpenAPI specs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a real shell and from a generic 'get page' tool, so an agent can tell exactly what this is.

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 gives explicit routing: use the search tool for broad/conceptual queries, and this tool for exact keyword/regex, structural exploration, or reading a full page by path. It also warns against guessing paths and prescribes discovery commands, covering when and how to use it versus alternatives.

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive/openWorld behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return format (contextual content with titles and direct links) and the concrete chaining pattern (append .mdx, read with head -200). It stops short of mentioning result limits or pagination, keeping it out of the top band.

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 purpose and routing guidance before the detailed .mdx chaining tip, and every sentence serves a distinct function. The final sentence is long and example-heavy, but the specificity is genuinely useful 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what search returns (titles and direct links) and how to escalate to full content via the sibling tool. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and follow up correctly.

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% for the single `query` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description hints at query intent through the use-case examples but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (Metabind knowledge base), enumerating the content types it covers (code examples, API references, guides). It distinguishes itself from query_docs_filesystem by naming what that sibling is for, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Explicitly says when to use it (answer questions about Metabind, find docs, understand features, locate implementation details) and names the alternative with its triggering condition (need full page content → query_docs_filesystem with head/cat). 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 convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context: feedback is routed to the docs team and is scoped to documentation content. It stops short of describing what happens after submission (e.g., whether a confirmation is returned, whether it creates an issue), but it does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral framing.

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, all informative. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives concrete usage criteria, and the third excludes non-documentation feedback. No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema together cover the essential information: what to submit, which page, what kind of feedback, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the post-submission result or confirmation behavior, which is not critical but would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'path' (URL path without .mdx extension) and 'feedback' (clear description of the issue). The tool description reinforces the kind of feedback expected but adds no technical semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it.' It identifies the specific resource (documentation site) and the action (reporting a problem), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling query/search tools by being feedback-oriented. It also explicitly carves out what it is not for: product support or feedback about the tool/assistant.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use boundary: 'not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.' This is strong, actionable usage direction.

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