doc-bot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns comprehensive details (methods, properties, etc.) and usage examples, and emphasizes its role in preventing misuse. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: it explains the tool's function, when to use it, benefits over alternatives, and practical advice. There is no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (exploring APIs with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., structured data vs. text) or any prerequisites, which would help an agent understand the full context without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('apiName' and 'docsetId') with descriptions and examples. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting constraints or interaction effects. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: to 'deep dive into any API, framework, or class' and 'returns all methods, properties, protocols, and usage examples.' It uses specific verbs ('explore,' 'check,' 'returns') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_documentation' or 'get_file_docs' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis rather than targeted searches.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'EVERY time you use an unfamiliar API,' with specific scenarios listed (e.g., 'implementing features with new frameworks,' 'encountering unknown classes mid-work'). It also contrasts with alternatives by stating it's 'much faster than multiple searches,' though it doesn't name specific sibling tools. 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.