reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool performs lookups and analysis (e.g., check_style) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or have side effects. The listed actions imply safe query behavior, so transparency is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the overall purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of actions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple actions, presence of output schema), the description covers the main behaviors adequately. It could include more explicit parameter-action mappings and return value hints, but the output schema likely compensates for the latter.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps actions to likely parameters (e.g., symbol uses description, error_help uses error), providing meaningful guidance. However, not all actions have clear parameter mapping (e.g., styles), preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool searches LaTeX documentation, symbols, packages, and error solutions. It lists distinct sub-actions, establishing it as a multi-purpose reference tool distinct from siblings like document, edit, layout, queue, and render.

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 enumerates specific use cases (search, symbol, package, etc.), allowing an agent to infer when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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