Titan Frameworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns an exact fix, but does not describe behavior on no-match or any side effects, which is consistent with annotations. Since annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate – it adds minimal context beyond 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?

One sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and target. No redundant words, efficient and to the point.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality and scope. However, it doesn't mention limitations such as coverage of specific versions or behavior when no match is found, which could be useful. Still, for a read-only diagnostic tool with output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the framework names in the description, which are already in the parameter description. Baseline of 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 states a specific verb (match) and resource (stack trace against known deprecated APIs) and enumerates the target frameworks (langchain, llamaindex, ollama, xrpl). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools fetch_latest_syntax and search_ai_framework_docs by focusing on exact fixes for deprecated APIs rather than general syntax or documentation lookup.

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 on the intended use case – diagnosing stack traces against known deprecated APIs – but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools imply different purposes, but no direct comparison is made, so it lacks explicit when/when-not 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the promise of 'working' and up-to-date content, which is a useful quality cue, but it doesn't disclose behavioral details like network fetching, latency, or failure modes. It does not contradict 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core value (what it returns: imports, snippets, migration notes) and includes illustrative topic examples. There is no fluff and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but the topic list and return-type description are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% (both framework and topic are documented), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('working imports, code snippets, and migration notes') for a framework topic. It is clear and understandable, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_ai_framework_docs or diagnose_framework_error; the differentiation by content type is only implied.

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 usage context is implied through the description: use this when you need working imports, code snippets, or migration notes. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, nor does it name sibling alternatives as the preferred choice for other scenarios.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the local index scope and that results come as compact chunks. It does not contradict the annotations, and nothing important like mutating side effects is omitted.

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 tightly worded sentence front-loads the action and scope, lists the supported frameworks, and closes with the return format. There is 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?

The tool is simple, both required parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover the read-only/idempotent behavior, and an output schema exists. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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%; both 'query' and 'framework' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the framework list positionally, so the baseline score of 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Keyword search'), a clear resource ('locally indexed Markdown'), and an explicit framework scope ('langchain, llamaindex, ollama, or xrpl'). It also states the return shape ('compact chunks'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like diagnose_framework_error or fetch_latest_syntax.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: this tool is for keyword/search lookups in docs, unlike diagnosing errors or fetching latest syntax. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the alternatives or provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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