Mammoth Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the return is the full markdown content of a single page, but nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens on a missing path. Modest added value against annotations that carry most of the burden.

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 short units: the action/return statement first, then the accepted path formats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be described, and the single parameter is fully explained. Annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly; only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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 compensate for the single `path` parameter — and it does, enumerating three accepted input forms (doc path "learn/x.md", site route "/learn/x", full docs URL including a ".md"-suffixed one). It adds real meaning beyond the bare `{"type": "string"}` schema, though it doesn't say whether the forms are interchangeable or which is preferred.

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?

Specific verb ("Fetch") plus a precise resource and scope ("one documentation page's full markdown content"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling list_docs/search_docs without opening a schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 only implied: the singular "one documentation page" plus a required path signals single-item retrieval, contrasted against the sibling list/search tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over list_docs or search_docs, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact not in annotations: only published pages are returned. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether unpublished pages are silently excluded.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core purpose comes before the optional modifier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the operation is a simple single-parameter read. For that complexity level the description is nearly sufficient, missing only the sibling routing that would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'section' parameter, but the description merely restates its name ('filtered by section') without format, allowed values, or case sensitivity. This is the minimum viable compensation for a low-coverage 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 and resource ('List published documentation pages') and adds the 'published' scope, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_docs, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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?

'Optionally filtered by section' hints at how to narrow results but gives no guidance on when to choose this over search_docs or get_doc. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing statements.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are relevance-ranked ('best-matching'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, scoring, or how many results come back when the limit default applies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple lookup tool. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is anything about when to pick this over get_doc/list_docs and any meaning for the query and limit parameters, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and neither parameter is explained: the description never says what a 'query' should look like (keywords vs. natural language, phrase syntax) nor what 'limit' bounds or how the default of 8 behaves. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Mammoth Analytics docs) plus the outcome (best-matching pages), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings get_doc and list_docs, which is the only thing keeping this from 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 and no mention of the alternatives (get_doc, list_docs), even though the search/list/fetch triad is exactly the kind of choice an agent needs routed. Usage is only faintly implied by the word 'search'.

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