Amomic-AI Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('one complete documentation page as clean Markdown'), which is not in any structured field. It does not mention truncation or error behavior for invalid paths, hence not a 5.

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 that front-loads the action and output format, with the prerequisite workflow clause appended. No redundant or filler wording.

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-only tool with fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, output format, and prerequisite step. Minor gaps around failure modes or very large pages are not material enough to drop below 4.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that the path accepts either a docs.amomic.in URL or a path like /api/messages. The description adds no further constraint or format guidance beyond that baseline.

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 one complete documentation page') plus the return format ('clean Markdown'), and explicitly positions the tool relative to the sibling search_docs ('after finding it with search_docs'). An agent can distinguish this from search_docs and search_api without opening any 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 a clear workflow condition: use this after locating a page via search_docs, which implies it is not a discovery tool. It stops short of stating what to do when the path is unknown or when to prefer search_api, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds that results are matched 'exact'-ly against a published contract, which is useful context, but it says nothing about what happens on zero matches, how results are ordered, or how the limit interacts with result volume.

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 filler, front-loaded with the verb and the specific artifacts returned. Nothing needs trimming and nothing obvious is buried.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shapes. It is nearly complete for that complexity level, missing only minor details such as limit behavior and empty-result handling.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the 'query' parameter is already documented in the schema as accepting endpoint path, HTTP method, operation ID, resource, or task, and the description largely restates that list rather than extending it. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap; a baseline 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 specific verb ('Find') and a concrete resource set: REST methods, paths, operation IDs, response codes, and endpoint summaries from the published OpenAPI contract. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_docs, leaving the agent to infer that this one targets the API contract rather than prose documentation.

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 implied by the phrase 'exact ... in the published OpenAPI contract', which suggests a precise lookup task rather than open-ended exploration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives read_doc or search_docs, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that matching spans multiple surfaces including error text (good for troubleshooting), but says nothing about result ranking, the default of 6 results, or whether results include content or only references.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler beyond the mild 'complete' emphasis. It is well sized for a simple two-parameter search tool; nothing is wasted, though no structure (e.g., query-vs-limit or result handling) is offered.

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 tool is simple, the annotations are rich, and no output schema exists.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema, and the description usefully clarifies the kinds of text the query matches against. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 6, max 10) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess at result-set control.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the complete Amomic-AI documentation') plus the match surfaces (task, concept, heading, keyword, error text), which lets an agent separate it from read_doc (fetch a known doc) and search_api (API reference lookup). It never names either sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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 verb 'search' suggests use when you lack a document identifier and would otherwise call read_doc, but the description never says when to prefer this over read_doc or search_api, nor what to do with results. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no follow-up guidance.

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