gb_gotchas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It explains the nature of the content (tip/warning/danger callouts) but does not mention side effects, output format, or limitations. It gives some context about the kind of data returned, but not enough to fully set expectations for a read-only list tool.

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 two sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides illustrative examples, making it front-loaded and efficient. All content is relevant and contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and gives examples of topics it covers. For a simple listing tool with optional parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given the tool's straightforward nature and the lack of an output schema.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (kind, limit, topic). The tool description adds context by mentioning examples like 'OAM' and 'STAT' that align with the topic parameter, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

States verb 'List' and resource 'Pan Docs' hardware caveats', with examples like 'OAM corruption' and 'STAT blocking' indicating the scope. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like pandocs_search or pandocs_get_section.

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 implies usage for retrieving hardware caveats and provides examples of topics (e.g., 'LCD-disable timing'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The guidance is indirect, based on the wording and examples, rather than a direct comparison with sibling tools.

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