Medius Docs

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

Discloses the output structure (path, title, section) and action (list every page). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it is adequate for a simple parameterless tool.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and result, immediately followed by usage guidance.

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?

Fully covers what the tool does and what output to expect given zero parameters and no output schema. No gaps for the intended use case.

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, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description adds no param info because none are needed.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'every Medius documentation page' with specific attributes (path, title, section). Distinguishes from sibling tools (fetch, get_page, search, search_docs) by focusing on enumeration rather than retrieval 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?

Explicitly suggests starting here to see what the docs cover, which implies initial use for overview. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios but provides good context for when to use.

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 carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked with snippets, which adds some value, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema implies.

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 redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose: stating functionality and suggesting next steps.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on ranking criteria, snippet format, or behavior on no results. It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool search, leaving some gaps in context.

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 the schema already describes both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no new information about parameters, confirming baseline score 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 clearly states 'Full-text search the Medius docs' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_page by explicitly suggesting follow-up for full Markdown, making its distinct role clear.

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: use this tool for searching, then get_page for full content. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to other siblings like search, which could be ambiguous.

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