Inside the Loop

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the Markdown output shape and hints that non-exact slugs may resolve, but says nothing about failure behavior for a bad slug, caching, or whether results are stable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and format, then a single enumerated clause covering payload contents; every item earns its place because no output schema exists. The long run-on colon list would read better as bullets, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating what the agent receives, and it covers how to supply the single required parameter. Only the error/miss path for an invalid or guessed slug is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only lookup.

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% and the schema already carries the example, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining where the slug originates (search_fixes) and that guessed variants are accepted, which is actionable semantics not present in the 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 specific verb+resource ('Return one fix page') plus the return format (Markdown) and enumerates the page's actual sections. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_post/get_tool, and it explicitly ties itself to search_fixes as the slug source.

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 clear context: get the slug from search_fixes, or pass a guessed variant. That tells the agent when to reach for this tool after searching. No explicit when-not or fallback guidance if the guessed slug misses, so it stops 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 the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is the content contract, and it delivers: exact sections returned (latest version/date, upgrade command, last five releases, help diff, breaking changes, reproduced errors with fixes, monthly history, sources). What's missing is any note on behavior for unknown names or empty histories.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the return contract first and the accepted input forms last; every clause is substantive. The long enumerations make it dense, though none of the items are filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly for a single-item lookup. It omits only edge-case behavior such as an unrecognized tool id, which is a modest gap 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries an example list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the id-vs-common-name distinction and a few extra aliases (app-store-connect-cli, codex-cli), a marginal but real expansion beyond the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return one tool page as Markdown') and enumerates the payload, which clearly separates it from list_tools and get_post. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'one tool page' is not a post or a list.

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: knowing it returns one tool's page suggests it is for looking up a single known tool. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_tools or search_posts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result set (version, UTC release date, last verified date, URLs), which matters because no output schema 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned-field detail is packed into a compact clause. Every element earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden and largely meets it by listing the fields returned. It stops short of noting result size, pagination, or ordering, which would be the remaining useful detail for a list operation.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the absence of filtering, which it implicitly conveys by describing a full enumeration.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("CLIs with living tool pages") and enumerates the returned fields (latest version, UTC release date, last verified date, page URLs). This clearly separates it from the singular get_tool sibling, though it never names that alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration counterpart to get_tool, but there is no statement of when to prefer it, whether it should be called before get_tool, or any preconditions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what the result rows contain (exact error, tool, affected versions, one-line fix, page URLs) and the special empty-query mode. No pagination/limit behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by acceptable input forms, return contents, and the edge case. The inline example earns its place by clarifying what 'fragment' means.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so competently. Minor gap: the optional tool filter and limit default (5, max 20) are never mentioned, and 'lists every fix page' sits slightly uneasily with a default limit of 5.

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 67% (tool and query are described, limit is not). The description expands query semantics well beyond the schema's 'Error text or a fragment of it' by allowing full terminal output and describing the empty-query case. It says nothing about the optional tool filter or the limit cap, so it only partially compensates.

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 (find) and resource (the fix page) scoped to CLI error messages, and the empty-query behavior further pins down what the tool returns. An agent can tell this apart from get_fix (single lookup) and search_posts (different resource) without opening a schema.

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 guidance: paste the exact error line, a fragment, or the whole terminal output, plus the empty-query listing case. It does not name an alternative (e.g. get_fix when the page id is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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