docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implicitly indicates a read operation ('Get') and summarizes contents, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, has no side effects, or mention any authentication or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete, listing the types of documentation returned. However, it omits the format (e.g., plain text, markdown, PDF) and any size limitations, which would improve contextual completeness.

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 tool has no parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by enumerating the documentation sections included (ChatGPT prompt, setup instructions, code examples, API reference), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 that the tool retrieves 'comprehensive Codehooks.io documentation and examples,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all CRUD, file, or index operations, by being the only documentation tool.

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 when documentation is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no other documentation tools among siblings, so the lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable but still leaves room for improvement.

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