doctrine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'offline, no device I/O', that data comes from bundled playbooks, and that it can be called repeatedly to refresh knowledge. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first defines function and safety, second explains rationale, third gives specific usage guidance. No redundant phrasing 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and decision guidance. It even includes situational triggers for specific playbooks. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has no description for the optional 'topic' parameter (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by stating: 'Call with no topic to list the topics; call with one for that playbook's full text.' This precisely defines null vs. provided behavior.

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 identifies a specific verb+resource: 'Re-serve the bundled operating doctrine' with clear read-only and offline behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all hardware/IPMI/control actions) by being the only documentation/playbook tool, and explains its purpose of re-anchoring sessions.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are provided: 'Read recovery the moment a host goes dark or a snapshot fails, and interfaces before picking how to do an action you haven't done this session.' It also instructs how to choose between no topic (list) and with topic (full text), which is actionable guidance.

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