OpenPlanr Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is Markdown, and query strings/anchors are normalized away and do not change the returned page. It doesn't cover failure behavior for invalid paths.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, then the input contract. No filler; every clause 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the output format (Markdown) and input normalization rules, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits only edge behavior such as errors for non-docs URLs, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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% (the single 'url' property is an unconstrained-in-meaning string), so the description carries the burden. It compensates by specifying two accepted forms (/docs/... path or full https://openplanr.dev/docs/... URL) and that query/anchor fragments are ignored, which is real semantic value beyond the schema's length bounds.

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 a docs page') plus the return format ('as Markdown'), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, so it lands just short of a 5.

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: the accepted '/docs/...' path form suggests you call this when you already have a page URL in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use versus 'search', and no statement of what happens when the path is not a docs page.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile, so the description must add something beyond that. It only hints at result granularity with the word 'passages'; it says nothing about ranking, result limits, whether matching is keyword or semantic, or truncation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose before the optional-parameter explanation. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or restated metadata.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the domain, the result unit, and clarifies the one ambiguous parameter. The remaining gap is the absence of any guidance distinguishing it from fetch_page.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load, and it does explain the non-obvious 'section' parameter precisely (first URL segment after /docs/, with 'skills' and 'get-started' examples) beyond the regex pattern in the schema. The required 'query' parameter is left implicit, though its meaning is self-evident from the tool name.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('OpenPlanr docs passages'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling fetch_page, so the agent must infer the division of labor between searching and fetching.

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 reasonably infer this is for locating docs content, and the section note hints at scoping a search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fetch_page, nor any exclusion or fallback guidance.

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