Yappy documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output format ('as markdown') and the scope ('one full ... page'). It does not mention error handling for invalid slugs, but with annotations present this is a minor 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 tightly written sentences. The first states the core action, resource, and output format; the second gives routing guidance and concrete examples. No wasted words or repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter tool with full enum documentation, strong annotations, clear sibling routing, and an explicit statement of the markdown return format, no meaningful context is missing. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%: the schema describes 'slug' as 'Which page to fetch' and enumerates all valid values. The description mentions 'by slug' but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one full Yappy documentation page as markdown'), and the key mechanism ('by slug'). It also implicitly differentiates itself from search_documentation by emphasizing 'full page' and 'markdown' versus an excerpt.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'after search_documentation when an excerpt is not enough and you need the whole page.' It even gives concrete examples, making the decision boundary clear relative to its siblings.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it states that the tool returns every page and specifies the returned fields (slug, title, one-line summary). No contradictions exist.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then explains the purpose with a clear rationale. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple, read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is completely adequate. It names the output fields, explains why the tool exists, and the schema documents the parameter. No output schema is needed because the description already tells the agent what will be returned.

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 include_summaries is fully described in the schema with its default and meaning, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'one-line summary' but does not explain the include_summaries flag; however, the schema carries that burden. A baseline 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 names a concrete verb ('List'), a specific resource ('every page in the Yappy documentation'), and the exact output fields (slug, title, one-line summary). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_documentation_page (fetch one page) and search_documentation (query pages), so an agent can correctly select it.

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 states the intended use case: to pick the right documentation page instead of guessing a slug. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_documentation or get_documentation_page, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction from the sibling names and this description.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that results include an excerpt and a URL, and by framing the search as covering both documentation and FAQ.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core function, then gives focused use cases, then states the result format. The list of example topics is long but relevant and helps an agent form queries.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains return value components (excerpt and URL). Together with the schema defining the three parameters, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like handling no results are not critical here.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds example query topics and mentions full-text search, but does not add significant semantics beyond what the schema already provides for `query`, `type`, and `limit`.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Yappy documentation and FAQ'), with full-text scope and concrete example topics. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that get or list pages.

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 to use the tool for how-to and troubleshooting questions and gives concrete examples such as installing Yappy and macOS permissions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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