Druxt docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return format (markdown), which is real context beyond the annotations. No error behavior for a missing/invalid path is disclosed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the path requirement and format example. Nothing 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete: what it returns (markdown) and how to address a page are both stated. Only error/miss handling is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 single parameter is documented there, but the description adds an illustrative path shape (/how-to/proxy) that clarifies format beyond 'The page path.' Minor added value is appropriate for a one-param tool.

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 (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (one documentation page, returned as markdown). The singular 'one page' implicitly contrasts with the list_docs and search_docs siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 tool requires an exact path, which suggests the agent must already know it, but the description never says to use search_docs or list_docs when the path is unknown. No when-not guidance is 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, so safety is covered; the description adds essentially nothing else. It does not say whether all pages are returned, whether results are paginated, or what a page entry contains — the main behavioral questions for a listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the space saved could have carried useful listing or pagination context.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at what the listing returns and whether pagination applies, and it should route agents away from list_docs when they need targeted lookup.

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%, but with a single optional parameter named "section" whose enum enumerates the valid values, the schema communicates the semantics on its own. The description adds only that the filter is optional and targets one section, which is marginal 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?

"List Druxt documentation pages" states a specific verb and resource, and the optional section scope distinguishes it from the single-item get_doc. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_docs, but the list-vs-search distinction is inferable.

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 for one section" implies usage as a section-scoped or full listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and neither sibling (get_doc, search_docs) is mentioned as an alternative for query-based retrieval.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (matching pages with their paths), which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or whether matching is exact or fuzzy — meaningful gaps for a search 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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing is wasted, though it is brief enough that the missing routing guidance is conspicuous.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape. It falls short on search behavior and result-set characteristics, which an agent would need to use results correctly.

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 exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'query'. The description adds no syntax, tokenization, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (Search) and resource (Druxt documentation and API reference), and adds what comes back (matching pages with paths). It does not distinguish itself from the siblings get_doc and list_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching, fetching one doc, and listing all docs.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_doc or list_docs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'Search' implies a discovery use case, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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