rqwstr_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. It discloses that the tool fetches guidance and imposes a rate limit (3 times per question). However, it does not state whether it is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The rate limit adds moderate transparency, but more detail on behavior (e.g., no side effects) would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains usage and a constraint. Every part earns its place.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two modes, gives examples, and adds a rate limit. It does not describe the format of returned guidance, but for a straightforward fetch tool, this is acceptable.

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 is 100% as the single parameter 'topic' is described. The description adds examples ('race', 'intruder', 'chain') and clarifies the use of 'index', but these largely repeat the schema's own description. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description provides marginal added value.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'rqwstr agent guidance by topic'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., hunt, send) by specifying a documentation retrieval function. The two modes (index vs specific topic) are explicitly described.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fetch guidance) and includes an explicit usage constraint: 'Do not call this tool more than 3 times per question.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies that this is for reference, not actions.

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