Toolaby docs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds useful context: the output format is Markdown and the no-page mode returns an index listing every page with a summary of what it covers. It does not say what happens for an unknown page value, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the conditional variants clearly paired. No filler; every clause conveys information.

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 and thin annotations, the description adequately covers both invocation modes and the return content. The only meaningful omission is the relationship to toolaby_search_docs, which an agent would need to disambiguate the two docs tools.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'page' parameter, and it does so by giving concrete example values ('gating', 'pricing', 'reference/client') that convey the expected slug/path form. It stops short of stating whether values are case-sensitive or what constitutes an invalid page.

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 ('Toolaby's docs as Markdown') and clarifies the two operating modes: no page returns the index, a page returns that page. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling toolaby_search_docs, so an agent gets no routing signal between the two.

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 when each mode applies ('Without a page: the index... With a page...'), which is genuine usage guidance for the parameter. But it never says when to prefer this tool over toolaby_search_docs, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape (pages with passages, each page's name and Markdown address), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with a colon-delimited expansion of the return payload; nothing is wasted and the verb leads. The colon construction is slightly dense but front-loads the purpose effectively.

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 does cover the essential return shape, which is the minimum. What is missing for completeness is the relationship to toolaby_docs, query-matching semantics, and any result-size or pagination behavior.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description; the phrase 'passages that match' weakly implies free-text matching. With only one simple string parameter and no syntax constraints (minLength 1, maxLength 200) surfaced, the gap is modest but real.

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 (Searches) and resource (Toolaby's docs) and even sketches the result shape (matching pages and passages, name plus Markdown address). It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling toolaby_docs, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no note that a sibling tool (toolaby_docs) exists. The description never says whether this is for free-text lookup, exact-match lookup, or how it differs from browsing docs directly.

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