JavaScript API file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds that the file defines an object-oriented interface, which describes the file content rather than tool behavior. It does not disclose potential edge cases such as whether the document must be open or what happens if an invalid document name is provided, but the annotation diminishes the need for safety disclosures.

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, well-structured sentence that clearly explains what is returned and why. It is appropriately sized with no filler or redundant details, and the key verb 'Return' is front-loaded.

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 tool with good annotations, the description adequately explains the return value and the intended input context. However, since there is no output schema, it might have elaborated on the response format or error behavior, but the current wording is sufficient for most use cases. Minor gap but not critical.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, with the doc parameter description already explaining its meaning and default behavior. The tool description simply says 'for a given document', adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a specific resource (the bananaapiv2.js JavaScript file) and explains its purpose (defines an object-oriented interface to the web server). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which mostly handle data operations rather than returning API files.

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 the tool is for retrieving the API file for a given document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the user to infer appropriate usage from the tool's purpose.

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