DevExpress Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: it discloses the return format (full markdown) and a hard input-origin constraint ('Do not construct URLs using your general knowledge'), which the annotations cannot express. It does not mention truncation or size limits for very large pages, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded and compact, with the prerequisite called out prominently. The URL-provenance rule is repeated three times across description and schema, which is mild redundancy that slightly dilutes impact.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema absent, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, return format, and input constraint — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: no guidance on error behavior for invalid URLs or oversized pages.

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%, so the url parameter and its provenance requirement are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same constraint rather than adding new semantics (e.g., what happens with an invalid or non-doc URL). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get full document content by URL') and clarifies the return format ('complete markdown content of a specific documentation page'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling devexpress_docs_search, which returns URLs rather than content.

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 states the prerequisite workflow: 'ALWAYS call devexpress_docs_search before using this tool to get valid URLs.' It names the condition and the alternative source of input, leaving nothing to inference.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are snippets/excerpts only, and full content requires a follow-up call — important for an agent planning a multi-step retrieval. It stops short of describing result count, ranking, or truncation limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the sibling relationship, return limitation, and workflow rule in descending priority. Slight redundancy in the list-handling sentence, which the schema already conveys, but no padding overall.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (snippets/excerpts) and the follow-up path. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the two required parameters and annotations covering safety semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this 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%: both `question` and `technologies` are documented in-schema, including the allowed enum set and minItems constraint. The description's 'pass them as a list' merely restates the array type plus the schema's own guidance, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (DevExpress documentation) scoped by technology and question. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from its only sibling by noting it returns snippets while devexpress_docs_get_content returns full content, so an agent can route between the two without reading either schema.

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 directive: 'ALWAYS call `devexpress_docs_search` before ANY `devexpress_docs_get_content` call in a user request chain.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects the ordering, leaving nothing to inference.

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