cg_docs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states the read-only behavior: fetches docs, returns index or full content depending on topic. Does not mention error cases or response format, but for a doc-fetching tool this is acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, but the bullet-style topic list could be slightly more concise. Still well-organized and informative.

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 simple parameter set (one optional string, no enums, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: behavior, parameter semantics, and topic choices. No missing information for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage and one parameter 'topic'. The description exhaustively explains its meaning, including the effect of omitting it (index) vs. providing a topic (full content), and enumerates the valid topic values with detailed content summaries.

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?

Describes a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'markdown knowledge doc'. Clearly distinguishes behavior for no topic vs. a topic. Sibling tools are all other operations (check, generate, simulate), so this tool's role as a documentation retriever is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the 'riscv' topic ('when building or extending a processor...'). Implies usage for 'context' as core language pack. Does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but given the tool's unique role, this is a minor gap.

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