Read Shelby Doc

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds value by specifying the input types and the maxChars parameter for output truncation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or pagination. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some context without rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without any wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, input types) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, input types, and implies output handling via maxChars, but lacks details on return format or error cases. With annotations providing safety context, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive for a read operation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing the accepted input types for 'page' and implying output truncation with 'maxChars', but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Shelby documentation page', specifying the exact action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading a specific page rather than listing, searching, or chunking, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 by listing the types of inputs accepted (path, title, URL, page ID, or fuzzy query), which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_shelby_docs' for broader searches, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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