Moxie Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description redundantly states 'Read-only; no side effects' but adds value by disclosing the return format ('Returns a single Markdown document') and the fallback behavior when the token serves multiple repos. No contradictions.

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 brief but packed with essential information: purpose, content list, safety, return type, and usage order. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically, with zero fluff.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (1 optional param), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to handle the edge case of omitted repository. It is fully complete for its complexity.

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% and the property description fully explains the repository parameter, including case-insensitivity and the multi-repo fallback. The tool description repeats this information but does not add any new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns a compact briefing for pre-edit context, listing specific content (index status, commands, tips, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like get_conventions and get_doc_gaps by being a combined briefing, and it explicitly mentions get_doc_impact as a follow-up, showing awareness of sibling tools.

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 explicit usage direction: 'Call this first at the start of a task' and instructs to follow up with get_doc_impact for path-scoped guidance. This provides clear when-to-use and an alternative, exceeding baseline expectations.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by declaring no side effects and outlining the structured return content (method, path, request/response schema, known consumers/features), which is not fully available from any output schema.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, side-effect declaration, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant restating.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return payload, read-only nature, and when to invoke it. It could be slightly stronger by explaining fallback behavior when repository is omitted, but the schema already covers that, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already explains paths and repository semantics thoroughly, including multi-repo behavior. The description adds little beyond framing paths as files 'an agent is about to touch,' so no extra score is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('return structured context') tied to a clear resource ('API endpoints') derived from file paths. It enumerates the returned fields (method, path, request/response schema, consumers/features) and distinguishes this from sibling tools by pairing it with get_doc_impact.

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 says to call this tool before editing API route or schema code, and names get_doc_impact as a complementary tool. It does not provide a formal when-not-to-use exclusion, but the use case is clearly scoped to pre-edit API impact assessment.

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?

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description adds beyond them: it discloses the return format (Markdown grouped by section), fields included (title, slug, repository path, source paths), total count and pagination cursor, and explicitly promises no silent truncation. This is rich, annotation-complementing transparency.

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 purpose, then safety, then return details, then usage guidance. It is three sentences, each earning its place, no fluff or repetition of schema field names that are already self-explanatory.

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?

Given 4 optional params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key operational behaviors: read-only guarantee, return structure, pagination honesty, repository fallback behavior, and when to use it versus siblings. It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema: it explains the repository fallback behavior (returns repository list when omitted with multi-repo tokens) and mentions the cursor in the response for pagination. It doesn't elaborate on section filter syntax beyond what the schema gives, but the added behavior notes justify a 4.

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 ('List') and resource ('repository's generated documentation'), and explicitly contrasts with a 'query-filtered subset' and sibling tool search_docs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a full table of contents.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use before adding a doc to avoid duplication, and to find slugs for propose_doc_update. It also states that search_docs is more direct for topic hunting, naming the alternative explicitly. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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, and the description's 'Read-only; no side effects' is consistent with those. Beyond the annotations, it adds valuable behavioral context: results are 'ranked matches in Markdown grouped into Documentation and Code sections, each with a title, snippet, and source paths,' and omitting query returns recent context. This goes beyond the structured safety hints without fully covering all edge behaviors like pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety, then return format, then usage guidance. Every sentence carries unique information: scope, output structure, when-to-use alternatives, and edge-case behavior. No repetition or filler beyond a short safety reinforcement.

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 thoroughly explains return values (Markdown, grouped sections, title/snippet/source paths) and covers key invocation scenarios (open-ended lookup, omit query, specific getter alternatives). The rich schema covers parameter details and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is left unexplained for a search tool.

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 all three parameters (limit, query, repository) are already documented with defaults, ranges, and fallback behaviors. The main description reinforces the query-omission behavior and result grouping but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Keyword and semantic search across the connected repository's generated docs, conventions, documentation gaps, AI-context notes, and indexed code.' It clearly enumerates what is searched and differentiates from sibling getters by framing itself as the open-ended discovery tool, matching the annotation title 'Search docs and code.'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for open-ended lookups when you don't know which category holds the answer; when you do, the specific getters (get_conventions, get_doc_gaps, get_documentation_opportunities) are more direct.' It names concrete alternatives and also discloses the edge-case behavior of omitting query, giving the agent clear decision rules.

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