Lium Docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: tie-breaking among basenames by audience order (Providers > Validators > Renters > Developers). It does not cover failure behavior (what happens on a miss) or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch of raw Markdown the disclosure level is solid.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the input-format and tie-break details. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned, what inputs are accepted, and how ambiguity resolves. Only error/miss handling is left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the three accepted input formats. The description adds value beyond that by defining the resolution behavior when a basename is ambiguous, which the schema cannot express.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Return the raw Markdown source for a documentation page.' An agent can immediately tell this is a fetch-by-identifier operation, which is plainly distinct from the sibling 'search' tool's query-based retrieval.

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 explains accepted input forms (URL, absolute slug, basename) and the basename tie-break rule, which implies when the tool is usable. However, it never states when to prefer read_page over the sibling 'search' tool, so the selection guidance 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a read-only search. It conveys the read nature implicitly and notes the audience scoping, but says nothing about ranking, result format, pagination, 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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional filter second. 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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it. Only a note on result ordering or format is missing.

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 query, audience, and limit (including default and max). The description only restates the audience enum values, adding minimal meaning beyond the structured fields. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Lium documentation pages), and makes the matching semantics clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read_page (search vs. fetch a known page), so it falls just 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?

The audience-filter clause implies when to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of the sibling read_page as the alternative for retrieving a specific page.

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