walt.id Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description only adds that the content is a Community-vs-Enterprise comparison and that it should precede integration work; it says nothing about size, structure, or stability of the returned comparison, which matters for an agent deciding how to consume it.

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 with zero filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to use it. The information is front-loaded with no redundant restatement of the title.

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, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries only the burden of stating content and timing, and it does both. The one residual gap is any hint about the shape or scope of the returned comparison, though for a static reference doc that is a minor omission.

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 no parameter meaning needs to be conveyed and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty input 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 ('Return') and a precisely scoped resource ('the comparison of the open-source Community Stack and the commercial Enterprise Stack'), which is distinct from the sibling doc-retrieval tools such as get_waltid_doc_page and search_waltid_docs. An agent can tell exactly what payload to expect without inspecting anything else.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: 'Read this before writing integration code,' which tells the agent when the tool is warranted. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use a doc page or OpenAPI spec instead), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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 bar is low. The description still adds real value by stating that the page is 'public' (no auth needed) and that the response is raw markdown, which tells the agent what format it gets back rather than rendered HTML.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter explanation following. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 full annotation coverage, the description covers the action, the input format, and the return format, which is close to everything needed. It does not mention failure behavior for a bad or nonexistent path, a minor but real gap.

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 already documents that the path accepts an optional leading slash or .md suffix. The description's example '/community-stack/issuer2/getting-started' usefully anchors the expected shape, but it adds little beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Return the raw markdown for one public docs page.' The 'raw markdown' and 'one page' framing implicitly sets it apart from search_waltid_docs, but it never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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 reader must infer this is the fetch-one-page tool while search_waltid_docs handles discovery queries. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like get_waltid_llms_index or search_waltid_docs.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by clarifying the returned content is an index of pages rather than page bodies, which sets the right expectation about result size and shape; it stops short of describing entry format or pagination.

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, zero filler, with the key disambiguation ('the index, not the full text') front-loaded in the second sentence. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 burden of explaining what comes back; it says only that it is an index, without indicating the entry format (links, titles) or the natural next step of fetching a page with get_waltid_doc_page. Adequate for a trivial no-argument tool, but there is an unaddressed gap around return shape.

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 and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies, with no misleading parameter claims.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the llms.txt index of public documentation pages'), and it explicitly delimits scope with 'This is the index, not the full text of every page'. That contrast implicitly separates it from get_waltid_doc_page, though no sibling tool is named directly, which keeps it 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?

Use as a discovery/entry point is implied by calling it an 'index', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion ('do not use this if you already know the page'), and no pointer to get_waltid_doc_page or search_waltid_docs as follow-ups. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by clarifying that it returns links only and does not fetch or invoke the referenced APIs, which prevents an agent from expecting spec content back.

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, both front-loaded with the essential fact and then the key caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 no-param, read-only listing tool this is nearly complete, and the "links only" note substitutes for the absent output schema at a high level. It could still say whether the result is a flat list of URLs or entries with names, which would fully close the gap left by no output schema.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 a precise resource ("public OpenAPI specification URLs from the docs metadata"), which is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like search_waltid_docs or get_waltid_doc_page. The added clause "Returns links only" further pins down what the output actually is.

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 it should call this when it needs spec URLs, and the "does not call those APIs" note hints at a boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the corpus is public documentation, the stack scoping semantics (community/enterprise subsume concepts), and the shape of returned items. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the main remaining gap.

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, then the filter semantics, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information not available in the schema or annotations, with no 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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and return contents adequately. The only shortfall is that it says nothing about result count limits or how to refine an overly broad query, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit because the schema's stack description is only an enum restatement ('concepts, community, or enterprise'). The description supplies the actual meaning of each value (concepts, open-source Community Stack, commercial Enterprise Stack) and the inclusion rule that community and enterprise searches also return stack-agnostic concepts.

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 and resource: 'Search public walt.id documentation by keyword.' It also states the return shape (titles, paths, short excerpts), which distinguishes it from get_waltid_doc_page (page fetch) and get_waltid_llms_index. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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?

It explains what the optional stack parameter does and that community/enterprise searches also include stack-agnostic concepts, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this search versus get_waltid_doc_page or get_waltid_llms_index, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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