get-create-docs-instructions

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

The description provides no explicit behavioral detail beyond the verb 'Get', which vaguely implies a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not disclose safety, side effects, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap, though the simple nature of the tool limits risk.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 is minimal but adequate for a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. However, it does not describe what the instructions are, how they are formatted, or how they will be returned. Given the lack of output schema, this missing detail prevents a higher score.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. Schema coverage is effectively 100% by having no parameters, so no compensation is needed.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('instructions to create a new document'). It is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name, but it adds clarity by specifying 'new document' rather than just 'docs'. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not applicable.

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 the tool should be used when instructions for creating a new document are needed. However, there is no explicit context, alternatives, or scenarios where it should not be used. The usage is inferred from the action rather than explicitly stated.

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