lerian

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. The description mentions the tool's scope (unified across products) and the available operations, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response formats, or whether operations are read-only vs. mutating. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and scope. The two sentences efficiently convey the tool's unified nature and available operations. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured, and there's some redundancy with the schema (e.g., listing operations that are already in the enum).

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides basic completeness by explaining the tool's scope and operations. However, for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, it should ideally provide more guidance on expected return values, error conditions, or usage patterns. The description is adequate but leaves room for more contextual information.

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 documents all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and requirements. The description adds some context by mentioning the 'all' product option and listing the four operation types, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Unified tool for ALL Lerian products... Access documentation, learning resources, and SDK code generation for any product.' It specifies the exact operations available (docs, learn, sdk, search) and distinguishes this as a unified tool covering multiple products, which is helpful since there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 on when to use the tool: for accessing documentation, learning resources, and SDK code generation across Lerian products. It explicitly mentions 'Use product='all' to search across all products' and lists the four operation types. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives, as there are no sibling tools provided.

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