rcmcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Quick start for the Cheaha HPC cluster' without specifying what the tool returns (e.g., text, steps, links), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the key information. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose. It does not waste words, though it could potentially be more informative without hurting conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent this is a quick-start guide for Cheaha HPC, which is likely sufficient for a basic call. However, it does not specify the format of the returned content or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity about what to expect.

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 input schema is trivially complete. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. There is nothing to compensate for.

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 provides a 'quick start' for the 'Cheaha HPC cluster'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_documentation_page or search_documentation, which are more generic. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely describes what it is, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where another sibling might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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, the description should disclose behavioral traits. 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating lookup, and 'full content' hints at the outcome, but it does not describe error behaviors, return format, or access restrictions. This is the minimum viable transparency.

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 sentence with zero waste; the verb and object are front-loaded. It is an ideal concise description for the given function.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is generally adequate, but it misses reinforcement of usage context and return expectations, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this fulfills a request.

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 input schema already describes page_path thoroughly (repo path, short path, or GitHub URL), and the tool description adds no extra semantic beyond the page reference. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('full content of a specific documentation page'). It is easy to distinguish it from search-like siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with them, so it falls slightly short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to pick this tool over list_documentation_sections, search_documentation, or get_cheaha_quick_start. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer that it is for known page paths.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the tool 'gets support info' without describing what that info contains, its format, or whether any external resources are referenced. For a retrieval tool this is a thin but non-misleading statement — a read operation is implied but nothing beyond that.

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 wasted words. For a parameterless retrieval tool this length is appropriate; the verb leads and the resource follows.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple retrieval task, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that it never states what the returned support info actually contains (contact email, link, hours, etc.), which an agent might want to know before deciding to invoke it.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty input schema already makes obvious. Per the baseline for a 0-parameter tool, this is appropriately handled.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('support info for UAB Research Computing'), so an agent can tell what it retrieves. However, 'support info' is vague — it doesn't specify whether this is contact details, help desk channels, or documentation pointers — and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling documentation tools.

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 context is implied by the name and simple resource description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools (search_documentation, get_documentation_page, get_cheaha_quick_start). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool lists main sections, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it does not specify output format or potential errors, the behavior is straightforward and sufficiently transparent for such a simple operation.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 list operation, the description is complete. It specifies the resource and action. While it does not describe the output format, this is not a significant gap given the minimal complexity. The tool is fully understandable in context with its siblings.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 verb 'list' clearly indicates a retrieval operation, and the resource 'documentation sections' is specific. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_documentation_page (which fetches a page) and search_documentation (which searches content), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The use case of listing sections before fetching a page is implied but not articulated, so guidance is limited to what can be inferred from the tool name and sibling context.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or output format expectations.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. It is succinct and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides enough context for a simple search tool, but it does not mention what the search results look like (e.g., snippets, links) or how they relate to the sibling tools. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on result format would enhance completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for 'query' and 'max_results', so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra semantic detail beyond what is already 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Search' and the target 'UAB Research Computing documentation', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like get_documentation_page or list_documentation_sections.

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 implies usage for finding relevant content but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over browsing or listing sections. It gives no conditions or examples of when to use the tool versus its siblings.

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