Quasar product guide

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the returned payload: full text with everything under it, URL, and revision. It does not explain invalid-id behavior, but the return scope is substantive for a read-only fetch.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the resource being fetched. Its grammar is slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries relevant information about input source, scope, and return fields.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description supplies the important return fields and input source. It leaves gaps around error handling and sibling-tool distinction, but is otherwise sufficient to invoke the 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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that `id` comes from a prior search result and identifies a chapter or section. It does not specify the id format beyond what the schema type provides, but the critical origin and meaning are stated.

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 resource and scope: one chapter or section of the guide, selected by an id, returning full text, URL, and revision. This distinguishes it from search by noting the id comes from search results, but it does not clearly differentiate it from the `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?

The phrase 'by the `id` search returned' implies this tool is used after a search call. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose `fetch` versus `read` or `index`, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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 destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds what the response contains (summary, outline, URL per chapter), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the resource and content, followed immediately by the call-order instruction.

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 no-param-required, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the return-field overview and the workflow entry point. It stops short of mentioning that the index is paginated or that earlier revisions can be requested.

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 cursor and revision are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either, notably not explaining revision-based browsing of earlier publications; 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 resource with its shape: every chapter of the guide, each with a summary, outline and URL. It is reasonably distinguishable from fetch/read/search by being the whole-guide catalog, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Call this first, then choose chapters by their summaries" gives a clear ordering and selection rule, which is genuine routing guidance. It gives no when-not or fallback case, so it falls short of a 5.

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 readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds the non-obvious pagination contract (long chapters arrive in parts, nextCursor → cursor). It does not explain roughly what 'everything under it' includes or how revisions relate to current content.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by addressing modes and pagination. The em-dash nesting is dense but every clause carries information.

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?

All params are optional, annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. The significant remaining gap is the relationship to the 'fetch' sibling — an agent cannot tell from this text which one to call for a chapter versus a single item.

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 only 50% — id and cursor have no schema descriptions — and the description compensates by explaining id provenance (index or search) and the cursor round-trip. Path and revision are covered by the schema itself, so the combined set is well explained.

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 ('read') and resource ('one chapter or section of the guide, whole, with everything under it'), and clarifies the two addressing modes (id or path). It implicitly links id to the index/search siblings but never distinguishes itself from the 'fetch' sibling, leaving a real selection ambiguity.

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 concrete usage context: obtain the id 'from index or search', or use the path, and tells the agent to feed nextCursor back as cursor for long content. It stops short of any when-not guidance, particularly versus 'fetch'.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the variable response shape: normally ids/titles/URLs, but expanded to chapters when matches are few. That conditional behavior is genuinely useful for planning, though the 'few matches' threshold is left undefined.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return shape. No filler; every phrase carries information about either matching or output.

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 purpose, matching mode, and return contents adequately. The only gap is that the conditional 'few matches' branch has no stated threshold, which leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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 carry the burden, and 'by words as written' meaningfully constrains the query to literal/keyword text rather than semantic search. It does not mention the 1-200 character bound, but the key semantic of the single parameter is conveyed.

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+resource ('Find chapters and sections of the guide') and clarifies the granularity (chapters vs. sections) as well as the matching mode ('by words as written'). It also positions itself relative to `fetch` by saying it returns ids for it, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 workflow is only implied: returning 'ids for `fetch`' suggests search-then-fetch, and 'with few matches it also returns the chapters, to choose from' hints at a browse fallback. Nothing explicitly says when to use this over `index` or `read`, and no exclusions are stated.

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