devplane-site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioural facts beyond that: only public topics are returned, and availability labels are embedded in the content. It says nothing about unknown-slug behaviour or whether content may be truncated.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the core action comes first. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic but does carry real information about the payload.

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 tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. The only real gap is that obtaining the required slug is never addressed, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as a bare string. The description partially compensates by identifying it as a slug, but gives no format, casing, or lookup hints for the identifier.

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 ("Read one public documentation topic by slug"), and the word "one" implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_docs/list_pages style tools that enumerate many. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already has a slug. The description never says how to obtain a slug (e.g. via list_docs) or what to do when the caller has only a topic name, so the when-to-use guidance is left 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=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces a read-only listing operation. It adds detail about output contents (full side-by-side dimension table and verdict) and the source URL, going slightly beyond the annotation-only picture without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds necessary specifics. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and sibling tools clearly distinct, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics burden for the description. The empty schema plus clear description leave no ambiguity about invocation inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('comparisons from https://devplane.dev/compare'), and enumerates the comparison categories, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_faqs and get_faq by targeting a distinct content type.

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 clearly establishes that this tool returns every comparison with full tables and verdicts, setting context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling covers the same resource, so the usage boundary is effectively clear.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context (results include pilot/planned status) and removes ambiguity about workflow execution, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination beyond what the output schema carries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the clarifying exclusion. No filler, though "including each topic's reference" is slightly awkward phrasing for what is really the returned 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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description need only establish purpose, scope and the no-execution caveat, which it does. The single remaining gap is routing against siblings get_doc, list_pages and list_faqs.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; baseline 4 applies. The description wisely spends its words on scope instead of restating the empty 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?

"Read public documentation" names a concrete verb and resource, and the second clause enumerates what each entry carries (reference, private-pilot or planned status). It does not, however, contrast itself with the close sibling get_doc or with list_pages/list_faqs, so an agent must infer that this is the broad index rather than a single-document fetch.

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?

"This does not execute workflows" is a genuine when-not exclusion that prevents a likely misuse. Usage is only implied for the positive case — nothing says to call this first to discover topics before calling get_doc, and no sibling is named as an alternative for pages or FAQs.

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