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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effect of auto-injecting seed code, stating it is idempotent and never overwrites existing files. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint flags, and it aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false).

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 dense paragraph but well-organized: it starts with the core function, then details parameter usage, and ends with important side-effect caveats. No wasted words, though slightly long; the key points are front-loaded.

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?

Covers parameter usage and side effects thoroughly, but lacks a clear distinction from the similarly named sibling get_guide, and does not mention the response format of the guide list or any error/edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the returned guides look like.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: topic (single guide id), topics (array of ids for multiple), and projectId (for injection context). Provides examples and clarifies the relationship between topic and topics. This fully makes up for the bare 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?

States a clear purpose: 'Floot documentation for agents' with explicit call patterns (no args, topic, topics). Provides a concrete example (topic:'floot-overview'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_guide (singular), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides some context (read floot-overview before first code change, pass projectId when working on a project) but never explicitly says when to use this tool over the alternative get_guide. No exclusions or conditional routing to the sibling are mentioned.

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