DevDocs10

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description still adds useful return-value context: output is Markdown and includes tested example output and browser support where available. It doesn't mention not-found behavior, but for a read-only fetch tool that is a minor omission.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the format/content detail is appended rather than padded. Nothing is wasted.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, output format, and content composition, and annotations cover safety. Only the failure mode for an invalid path is unaddressed.

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 the single `path` parameter is fully documented there, including accepted forms (slash-prefixed, bare, and full URL). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 (Get) and resource (a DevDocs10 article) plus the return format (Markdown), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling read paths (search_docs, list_docs), though the verb 'get' implies single-article retrieval.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and never names search_docs or list_docs as the discover-then-fetch alternatives. The only workflow hint ('Article path from search_docs') lives in the schema, not the 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — results are grouped by topic, and omitting `section` degrades to a top-level listing of sections and topic groups — but says nothing about result size, pagination, or limits on listings.

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, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the conditional no-section behavior immediately after. 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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and both code paths adequately. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and what fields each listed article exposes, but an agent can call this correctly as written.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does explain the semantically important part: what happens when `section` is omitted. The enum values themselves (swift, javascript, etc.) are self-documenting, so nothing critical is missing.

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 specific verb and resource ("List DevDocs10 articles grouped by topic") and clarifies the grouping behavior, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings get_doc or search_docs, leaving the agent to infer that those are for single-document retrieval and keyword search respectively.

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 describes the two operating modes (with vs. without a section), which implies when each is useful, but it never states when to prefer this tool over get_doc or search_docs. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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 and openWorldHint (local corpus). Beyond that, the description adds useful behavior: it returns best-matching articles with their paths, which matters since there is no output schema. Ranking/pagination behavior is the only notable omission.

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 is searched and what comes back, ending with the next-step pointer. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 search with fully documented params and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough: scope, result shape, and follow-up tool. Minor gaps (result ordering, whether limit affects ranking) do not block correct invocation.

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%, including enum values and limit bounds, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only adds that querying is keyword-based across the listed languages, which is marginal beyond the enum.

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 (DevDocs10 guides), names the covered languages, and clarifies it is keyword-based rather than a fetch. The closing pointer to get_doc separates it cleanly from its read sibling.

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 routes the agent: search here, then 'read one with get_doc'. It gives a clear workflow but does not mention list_docs or when browsing might beat searching, so alternatives are only partially covered.

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