get_documentation_index

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 what the tool returns ('Muestra estadísticas: total de entradas, páginas únicas, tipos de contenido'), which is helpful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, listing what it returns, and providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for the statistics), but overall it's well-organized with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, return format). The description covers the basics but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tech' documented as 'Slug de la tecnología'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Obtiene información del índice de una documentación' (Gets information from a documentation index). It specifies the verb 'obtiene' (gets) and resource 'índice de documentación' (documentation index), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_content or search_documentation by focusing on index statistics rather than content retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_type_entries or list_documentations, which might also relate to documentation structure.

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 for when to use this tool: 'Útil para entender la estructura de una documentación antes de buscar' (Useful for understanding the structure of documentation before searching). This implicitly suggests using it as a preliminary step before content-focused tools like search_documentation or get_page_content. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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