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: output is grouped by topic, and omitting section falls back to listing sections/topic groups. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or volume of articles returned.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the conditional default behavior immediately after.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, grouping, and the no-parameter fallback. Only the shape of the returned grouping (and result volume) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 must carry the parameter meaning and it does: passing a section yields that section's articles grouped by topic, omitting it navigates to the section list. That is the essential semantic for the one optional enum parameter, though the enum values themselves are still only in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List DevDocs10 articles grouped by topic.' Clear what the tool returns. It does not name siblings get_doc or search_docs, so the agent must infer the list-vs-get-vs-search distinction from the name alone.

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 second sentence implies usage ('Without a section, lists the sections and their topic groups') by describing what omitting the parameter yields, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no reference to get_doc or search_docs as 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it returns best-matching articles with their paths, and signals a follow-up read call rather than full document content. Ranking or pagination behavior is not described, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the return shape and next step. No 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 adequately characterizes the return value (matching article titles/paths) and the intended follow-up. It is complete enough to call correctly; only minor gaps like result ordering are unstated.

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%, with query, limit (default 8, max 20), and a section enum all documented in the schema. The description confirms keyword-style querying but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (search) and resource (DevDocs10 guides across Swift, JavaScript, CSS, HTML) with the keyword-based mechanism. It clearly separates itself from get_doc by positioning search as the retrieval step and get_doc as the read step.

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 to get_doc for reading a result, giving a clear two-step workflow context. It does not mention list_docs or state when browsing is preferable to searching, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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