docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the return format (JSON array of {id, name, description} objects), performance characteristics ('cheap - no OpenAI call, no vector search'), and cost implications ('call it freely'). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences each add important context (usage guidance, cost information). While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage guidance, behavioral transparency about cost and performance, and relationship to sibling tools. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling information, but overall it's highly complete for this tool's 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description adds value by explaining why there are no parameters (this is a simple enumeration tool) and provides context about the relationship between this tool's output and the sti_search tool's platform parameter requirements.

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 with specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Stimulsoft product/platform that has indexed documentation'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool sti_search by explaining this tool provides platform IDs for use with that search tool. The detailed list of product examples further clarifies scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user's question is ambiguous about which Stimulsoft platform they are using, or when you need to pick a valid platform value to pass into sti_search') and names the specific alternative tool (sti_search). It also includes cost considerations ('cheap - call it freely whenever you are unsure').

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 no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it explains the search technology (OpenAI embeddings + cosine similarity), cross-lingual query handling, search strategy with specific steps, result scoring thresholds (<0.3), and the critical instruction to always use this tool for Stimulsoft-specific information rather than relying on potentially outdated training data. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, search strategy, exclusions, important note) and every sentence serves a purpose. While somewhat lengthy, the information density is high and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor deduction because some search strategy details could be more concise.

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 tool's complexity (semantic search over extensive documentation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness: it explains the search technology, result format, when to use/not use, search strategies, cross-lingual handling, and the critical instruction to always prefer this tool over training data for Stimulsoft-specific information. No output schema exists, but the description fully documents the return format.

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 description adds some value by providing search strategy guidance that references parameters (e.g., using 'platform' for tighter results, omitting it when unsure, reformulating 'query' with different keywords), but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool performs 'authoritative semantic search over the official Stimulsoft Reports & Dashboards developer documentation' and specifies it returns 'a ranked JSON array of matching sections' with detailed field information. It clearly distinguishes this search tool from its sibling 'sti_get_platforms' by explaining their relationship in the search strategy section.

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 provides extensive, explicit guidance on when to use this tool with bulleted examples ('USE THIS TOOL... WHENEVER the user asks about...') and when not to use it ('DO NOT USE for...'). It also mentions the sibling tool 'sti_get_platforms' as an alternative/precursor for platform identification, creating clear decision boundaries for the agent.

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