developer-tools

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

Annotations provide strong hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the content type ('Google Workspace documentation page') and linking to the sibling tool, enhancing context without contradicting annotations. It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but that's acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and references the sibling tool, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by clarifying the relationship with the sibling tool or expected output format, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and purpose. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or adding extra meaning.

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 ('Fetches the content') and resource ('Google Workspace documentation page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_workspace_docs' beyond mentioning it as a source of URLs, missing an opportunity to clarify distinct roles (fetching vs. searching).

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 by referencing the sibling tool 'search_workspace_docs' as a source for URLs, suggesting a workflow where search results are used as input. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in 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?

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('latest official') and content types (API references, guides, tutorials, code examples), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result formatting beyond what annotations cover.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists included content types without unnecessary details. It could be slightly improved by structuring to highlight key distinctions, but it's appropriately sized and avoids waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource scope and content types, though it lacks guidance on usage versus siblings, which is a minor gap in this context.

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%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameter beyond implying it's used for searching documentation, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra information.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('Google Workspace documentation'), specifying the scope as 'latest official' and including content types like API references and guides. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'fetch_workspace_docs', which might retrieve specific documents rather than search, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'fetch_workspace_docs' or other alternatives. The description implies usage for searching documentation but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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