QBCore Community Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination (follow nextOffset until null) and input restrictions (canonical paths only, no arbitrary URLs). It does not cover edge cases like invalid-path errors or rate limits, but for a safe read operation this 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence earns its place: usage source, pagination instruction, and input exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing operational context: where valid paths come from, how to paginate, and what the tool does not do. Complete for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that 'path' must be a canonical path from docs_search or docs_list, and that pagination uses 'nextOffset' until null, implicitly covering the 'offset' parameter. It does not explicitly say to pass nextOffset as offset or restate the numeric constraints, but it adds substantial value over the bare 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Markdown documentation page) and explicitly limits scope to canonical paths returned by docs_search or docs_list. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/list tools.

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 states when to use it (a canonical path from docs_search or docs_list), how to use it (follow nextOffset until null to get the complete article), and an explicit exclusion (does not fetch arbitrary URLs). The alternatives docs_search and docs_list are named as the source of valid paths, leaving little 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the pagination contract ('deterministic pagination', 'follow nextOffset until null'), which is real behavioral information not present in the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the catalog purpose front-loaded and the pagination instruction following immediately.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description supplies the missing pagination behavior. It is nearly complete, though the limit parameter and the enumeration-vs-search distinction remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It conveys scope selection and the offset-as-cursor semantics ('nextOffset until null'), but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or valid scope values, leaving one of three parameters and the enum meaning undocumented.

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 ('browse the canonical documentation catalog') and adds the scoping dimension ('by scope'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with docs_search or docs_get, so the agent must infer that this is the enumeration path rather than the query path.

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 'by scope' and the pagination instruction, which suggests browsing an entire category. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling docs_search is never named as the alternative for keyword lookups.

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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: results are "bounded excerpts" (not full code), include canonical citations, and carry source-review metadata, which sets expectations about truncation and provenance.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the retrieval scope comes first, the return characteristics second, and the sibling routing last. Every clause carries 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?

Rich annotations and an existing output schema mean return values and safety need little prose, and the description covers purpose, routing, and result nature. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance, particularly the limit and scope controls, which are left entirely to the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description bears the burden. It partially compensates by naming content categories (APIs, qb-* resources, setup, troubleshooting) that implicitly map to the scope enum values, but it never addresses limit (default 5, max 10) or query length/format constraints.

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 (Find) plus the resource domain (QBCore APIs, qb-* resources, setup and troubleshooting references), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling docs_get for full code. An agent can tell what this retrieves without opening the 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?

"Use docs_get for complete code" gives a clear alternative and the condition that selects it, effectively defining this tool as the discovery/excerpt step. It does not mention docs_list or say when not to search, so it falls short of fully exhaustive routing guidance.

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