Medius Docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return format ('full Markdown') and the non-obvious behavior that a section's id resolves to its parent page, but it says nothing about read-only guarantees, auth/permission requirements, or whether fetches are cached or rate-limited.

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 dense sentence with the resource and return format front-loaded and the id-provenance caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and its single-parameter, read-only surface is small. It covers what the tool does, where the id comes from, and the section-id edge case, though it omits error handling and sibling disambiguation.

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 single documented id parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining where the id originates ('from search') and that a section-level id silently resolves to the containing page, which is meaningful input semantics an agent would otherwise miss.

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+resource: 'Return the full Markdown of one docs page,' which tells the agent exactly what comes back rather than a vague 'get page'. It ties the input to 'an id from search', implicitly distinguishing it from search tools, but it never contrasts with the very similar sibling get_page, leaving the closest alternative unresolved.

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 phrase 'by an id from search' implies the intended workflow (search first, then fetch), and the parenthetical hints that section ids are acceptable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this over get_page or what happens when an id is invalid or missing, so usage is only 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states a read operation (return Markdown), which is clear, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence front-loading the action and resource, with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains input and output. It could mention error cases or response format, but for a straightforward tool it is fairly 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 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the path format (leading slash optional, .md suffix optional) and providing examples, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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 the full Markdown of a documentation page by its path, with examples like '/library/clip'. This distinguishes it from siblings that list pages or search.

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 use when the page path is known, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs siblings like 'search' or 'list_pages'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the output fields (path, title, section) and implies completeness ('every page'). However, it does not disclose behavior like ordering, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. For a simple list tool with no params, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action. Every word is useful. No extraneous 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple enumeration tool. It tells what it returns and suggests initial usage. Could optionally mention output format or size, but not required.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3 per rubric. Description adds no parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, which is fine since there are none.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists every Medius documentation page with path, title, section. Verb 'List' and resource 'Medius documentation page' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_page' (single page) and 'search' (content search) by emphasizing full enumeration.

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 says 'Start here to see what the docs cover', guiding the agent to use this first for overview. Does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if you need detailed content, use 'get_page' or 'search'), but the start-here advice implies sequencing.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: results carry ids that chain into fetch. It says nothing about result volume, ranking, pagination, or scope limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the follow-up workflow hint. Nothing needs trimming.

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 explained, and the description covers the action plus the id-to-fetch handoff. The one material omission is differentiation from the near-identically named sibling 'search_docs'.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search terms.'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or query-operator guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Medius docs for matching pages and sections'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool literally named 'search_docs', leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

'Pass a result's id to fetch to read its page' gives useful workflow context for what to do after searching. But it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_docs', nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the return shape ('ranked results, each with its matching sentence') and the intended follow-up call, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result ranking criteria.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: what is searched first, what comes back second, and the chaining instruction last. Everything is front-loaded and every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's account of the return format and the get_page chaining is the only guidance an agent gets, and it covers the essentials. Only the ambiguity versus the sibling 'search' tool and the absence of any permission/limit caveats keep it from being fully 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 100%: 'query' is documented and 'limit' spells out the default (10) and maximum (50). The description adds no syntax, operator, or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) plus the precise resource scope: the Medius site, its docs/Guide pages and sections, the dashboard, firmware releases and device reports. That is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool literally named 'search', so an agent still has to guess between the two.

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 gives a clear follow-up workflow (call get_page on a result's path for full Markdown), which implies search is the discovery step. But it never states when to use this instead of the sibling 'search', 'fetch', or 'list_pages', and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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