help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the tool as retrieving documentation, without mentioning side effects, network dependency, or state changes. The 'replace' parameter suggests a potential behavior (e.g., overwriting existing files), but this is not explained. Lacks transparency for a mutation-capable 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly concise for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete regarding parameter details and output format. The 'replace' parameter's role remains ambiguous. A complete description would explain both parameters and the nature of the returned documentation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions. The description does not explain the required 'cmd' parameter (presumably the Stata command name) or the optional 'replace' boolean. No added meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pair ('Retrieve documentation and usage information for a Stata command'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ado_package_install, get_data_info, read_log, and stata_do. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you need to understand a command's syntax, options, or troubleshoot errors before running it.' Although it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies when not to use it. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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