fetch-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching documentation but lacks details on how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it returns raw text, formatted content, links, or errors; if there are rate limits; authentication requirements; or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the basic action, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the purpose and usage guidelines efficiently. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on return values (no output schema provided) and behavioral aspects like error handling or format. For a fetch tool with no annotations, more context on what 'fetch' entails would improve completeness.

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%, with the docType parameter fully documented in the schema, including enum values and descriptions. The description adds some semantic context by emphasizing 'instructions' as mandatory first and grouping SDK types, but this mostly reiterates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Fetch Insforge documentation.' It specifies the resource (Insforge documentation) and the action (fetch), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the documentation-fetching context. The mention of specific SDK categories adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from potential documentation-related siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use "instructions" for essential backend setup (MANDATORY FIRST), or select specific SDK docs for database, auth, storage, functions, or AI integration.' It clearly indicates the priority of 'instructions' and lists alternative documentation types for different needs, offering strong contextual direction.

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