femm_manual_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the caching behavior ('extracted to text once and cached') and the two distinct return shapes (section text vs. snippets with section names), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing/manual not installed), result count, or how caching interacts with the undocumented refresh flag.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource, and the examples are dense rather than padded. The query sentence runs long, but every clause (formats and their return semantics) earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers the primary query path well but leaves the refresh and max_chars knobs, plus error behavior, unaddressed — a meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the `query` parameter's accepted forms and their differing output, but `refresh` and `max_chars` are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the installed FEMM 5 manual (manual.pdf...)'. It also clarifies the query-response contract (headings return section text, keywords return snippets). It does not name which sibling it contrasts with (e.g. femm_api_search, femm_examples_list), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 accepted query forms are stated, which implies how to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative documentation tools (femm_api_search, femm_api_get, femm_examples_list). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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