docs-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that the tool returns markdown and metadata, which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior for missing pages. The description adds some value but not extensive behavioral context.

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 primary action and resource, and every word adds meaning. No redundancy or fluff.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and output type. It could mention what happens if the page is not found or include more details about the metadata, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 'path' parameter. The description clarifies that both relative and full URLs are accepted and provides an example, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a single CometChat documentation page by URL or path, returns markdown content with metadata. It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('CometChat documentation page'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search and bundle by specifying 'single page' and path-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 implies usage when you have a specific URL or path to a documentation page but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cometchat_docs or get_cometchat_implementation_bundle. No exclusions or context are provided.

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 description adds value beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by detailing the bundle's contents and coverage across platforms. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits any mention of potential limitations like bundle size or response complexity.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and follows with relevant details about bundle contents and supported platforms.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (bundle contents) and lists applicable platforms. No gaps remain.

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% with a clear parameter description. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic meaning (e.g., format, validation rules). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'returns a curated implementation bundle' and lists the contents (prerequisites, install commands, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is for integration scenarios, not generic 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?

The description provides context that the tool is for named CometChat integration scenarios and lists supported platforms. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (fetch_cometchat_doc_page, search_cometchat_docs), so guidance on exclusions is missing.

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 set readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the return format (ranked snippets with titles and direct links) and the optional version filter. No contradictions, and it provides enough behavioral 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?

The description is concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the optional version filter, making it easy to scan.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return format, and optional filtering. Lacks details on pagination or ordering but is sufficient for a search 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value by stating default limit (10) and query character length (1-500), but these are already implicit in the schema. No significant enhancement.

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 CometChat documentation across SDKs, UI Kit, REST API, tutorials, and OpenAPI specs. The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_cometchat_doc_page and get_cometchat_implementation_bundle.

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 implies usage for searching documentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context signals from sibling tools suggest differentiation, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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