Docsy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint beyond annotations: the URL must belong to the exact authorized source and version, and arbitrary web fetching is disallowed. It does not cover error behavior or what happens on a mismatched URL.

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, both earning their place: the first states the two retrieval modes, the second the authorization constraint. Front-loaded with the primary action, though the first sentence is dense and packs several concepts together.

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 fetch with four safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers both invocation paths and the key authorization restriction. It leaves gaps on what content is returned, pagination, and behavior when the ID or URL does not resolve.

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, and it does map parameters to meaning: 'id' identifies an indexed search result, while 'libraryId' + 'url' together identify a verified publisher page. It still does not clarify optionality/mutual exclusivity of the three params or why no parameters are required.

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 (fetch) and resource (one indexed search result, or a verified publisher page) and names the two distinct retrieval modes. It contrasts with the multi-result siblings by emphasizing 'one indexed search result', though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from 'search' or 'list-library-versions'.

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 the precondition for the URL mode ('previously obtained from link-only query-docs') and an explicit negative boundary ('no arbitrary web fetching'), which tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. It stops short of naming a fallback sibling for cases outside these two modes.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new context: indexed docs versus upstream tags are distinguished, and upstream tags may lack usable documentation. That caveat materially affects how an agent interprets results. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering.

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?

Four compact sentences with the default behavior front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic style ('Default: representative version preview') is efficient, though the density makes the mode-switch slightly harder to parse than plain prose would be.

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 list tool with no output schema, annotations cover safety and the description covers the preview-versus-paginated distinction and the docs/tag caveat. Still missing are any explanation of includePrerelease and any hint about result ordering or size, which an agent deciding how to paginate would want.

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 limit/offset as a pagination pair that switches from preview to individual stable release tags (including patch versions), which adds real value. But includePrerelease goes entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and libraryId is undescribed, leaving one of four parameters 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?

The description specifies the resource (library versions) and the two operating modes: a representative preview by default, and a paginated listing of individual stable GitHub release tags. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts with siblings like resolve-library-id or query-docs, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 gives one useful conditional: use the default for a preview, supply limit/offset to paginate the full stable tag list. However, it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., resolving a libraryId first) or when to prefer a sibling tool such as fetch or search, so usage guidance is only partially implied.

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default snippet budget of 6,000 characters to protect agent context, a 50,000 maximum, the fact that 'links' avoids loading/parsing/embedding page contents, and that maxCharacters is a character cap not a token count.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct decision (scope, response mode, budget, query-count discipline), with the primary constraint front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what each response mode returns, and it covers budget and rate discipline. Minor omissions remain: the default for 'limit', pagination behavior, and the explicit prerequisite of resolving a library ID first.

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description still earns credit by explaining the semantic tradeoff behind 'response' (links vs snippets) and restating the default/max character budget in context. It adds less on 'limit', 'language', and 'libraryId', which are left to 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?

States a specific verb (search) and a precisely scoped resource (one resolved library at an exact version, source-linked docs). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'search' for unscoped discovery, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Gives clear selection guidance between the two response modes ('links' for publisher URLs without page bodies, 'snippets' for excerpts), names 'search' as the alternative for unscoped discovery, and caps effort at 3 focused queries per question. It never explicitly names resolve-library-id as the prerequisite for getting a valid libraryId, which is the one gap.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the query is only used for ranking and warning against including credentials, PII, or proprietary code — a data-handling constraint not present in the structured fields. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then call-order guidance, then the data-safety constraint. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a two-parameter resolution tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what comes back (a single ID vs. a ranked list), which an agent would otherwise need to infer.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including length limits and the ranking purpose of query). The description largely restates the schema's privacy guidance and adds no new syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource pair: 'Resolve a package or product name to a Docsy library ID.' The purpose is unambiguous and clearly separable from the sibling query-docs and list-library-versions 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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('before query-docs') and the condition under which it can be skipped ('unless an exact /org/project or /org/project/version ID is already known'). This routes the agent between siblings with no inference required.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are stable IDs and absolute URLs, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or whether the index is scoped to a library.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the return format appended. Nothing is wasted, though it could carry one more clause of scope without becoming bloated.

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 tool the description is near-adequate: annotations cover safety and the sentence covers returns. It still leaves the agent guessing about result count, pagination, and how this global search relates to query-docs and resolve-library-id.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies `query` is matched against public indexed documentation, which adds slight value, but omits any note about the 4000-char limit or query syntax.

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 (all public indexed documentation), and adds a return-shape note (stable IDs and absolute URLs). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling query-docs, which an agent would likely confuse with this tool, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (query-docs, resolve-library-id, fetch). The word 'all' hints at scope but gives no condition that selects this tool over its siblings.

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