Toolaby docs

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 behavioral value by disclosing the shape of both responses (an index of every page with its coverage, or a single page rendered as Markdown), which the annotations do not.

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 no filler, front-loading the resource type and Markdown format before the two mode branches. Every clause carries information; nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema and no nesting, the description supplies what an agent needs: what both call variants return. It omits edge-case handling such as an unrecognized page name, but the core selection and invocation path is 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 coverage is 0% for the lone 'page' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, explaining both the omitted case and the supplied case and giving real page examples ('gating', 'pricing', 'reference/client'). It stops short of stating format constraints (case sensitivity, invalid page behavior).

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 ('Read the docs') and describes the two operating modes precisely: index when no page is given, one page when it is. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling toolaby_search_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary between reading and searching.

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 clear conditional guidance tied to its single parameter ('Without a page: ... With a page: ...'), which maps directly to discovery versus targeted reading. It never mentions when to prefer the sibling search tool, so the exclusions/alternative routing expected for a 5 are absent.

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 useful workflow context (results carry a Markdown address and a name for toolaby_docs) but says nothing about result limits, ranking, pagination, or whether the search is keyword or semantic. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what to do with it; every clause carries information. The second sentence is slightly convoluted ('the name toolaby_docs reads it by') but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the return shape (matching pages/passages, each with its Markdown address and lookup name), which is the key missing piece for a search tool. It stops short of specifying result count, ordering, or how to proceed when nothing matches.

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 parameter 'query' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of semantics. It only implies matching behavior ('pages and passages that match') without stating whether the query is keywords, natural language, or supports syntax, and never mentions the 1-200 character constraint.

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 Toolaby's docs') and hints at the sibling relationship by noting results carry 'the name toolaby_docs reads it by,' which distinguishes it from the reader tool. It stops short of an explicit contrast like 'use toolaby_docs to fetch a page by name,' but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 trigger for use: 'Call it before writing Toolaby code.' That is a clear context cue, though it offers no when-not guidance (e.g., when to skip searching and go straight to toolaby_docs).

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