CleanSlice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation that returns rules (implied by 'Returns essential slice creation rules'), it's a prerequisite step, and it emphasizes importance with warnings and capitalization. However, it doesn't detail response format, error handling, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized but could be more structured. It uses emphasis (⚠️, capitalization, exclamation points) effectively to highlight critical info, but the repetition ('READ THIS FIRST') and fragmented sentences reduce clarity. It's front-loaded with the warning, but the flow could be smoother.

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 complexity (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does (returns rules), when to use it (first), and key content (naming rule). For a zero-param tool with no structured metadata, this covers essential context, though it could briefly mention output format.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter info. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it efficiently avoids unnecessary details.

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's purpose: to return essential slice creation rules and the most important naming rule (use singular names). It specifies 'request this tool first before creating any code' which indicates it provides foundational information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list-categories or read-doc beyond the 'first' emphasis.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'request this tool first before creating any code' and 'READ THIS FIRST before creating any slices.' It strongly indicates this is a prerequisite step and when to use it (before any slice creation). No alternatives are mentioned, but the context makes it clear this is the initial step.

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. It mentions the tool lists 'all available' categories, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, sorted, or what the return format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or limitations, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simplicity.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('documentation categories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' beyond mentioning it's for discovery before searching, which is good but not a full distinction.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to discover what categories are available before searching'), which helps guide usage relative to the 'search' sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is practical and sufficient.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. 'Full content' disclaims partial/summary results, but lacks disclosure about return format, encoding, size limits, or idempotency that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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 with zero waste. First sentence declares purpose; second gives precise workflow guidance. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter read operation. Lacks output format specification (text vs. binary), but given the simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and clear usage pattern, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with 'Document path from search results'. Description adds workflow context by specifying the path comes from `search` results and reinforcing the temporal relationship (use after search), adding semantic value beyond the schema's static description.

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?

Clear verb (Read) + resource (document) + scope (full content by path). Effectively implies distinction from `search` sibling which returns snippets, though could explicitly contrast with 'get-started' or 'list-categories'.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use this after `search`' names the prerequisite tool, and 'when snippets are not enough' defines the specific trigger condition for invocation.

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 full burden. It mentions returns are sorted by relevance, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (structure of documents).

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first establishes purpose and prerequisite, second lists filter options and return behavior. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about filtering and sorting. However, without annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema to describe return values, the description should ideally provide more information about what constitutes a 'document' in the results and any important constraints.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by query text, framework, phase, feature, category, or tags, which aligns with schema parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 searches for documentation and specifies what it filters by (query text, framework, phase, feature, category, tags). It distinguishes from 'list-categories' by mentioning that tool as a prerequisite, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-started' or 'read-doc'.

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 provides explicit guidance to use 'list-categories' first to see available categories, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-started' or 'read-doc', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the category suggestion.

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