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 key behaviors: it reloads from disk, re-indexes all documents, updates the search index, and addresses stale search results. However, it lacks details on potential side effects like performance impact or error handling, which could be useful for a mutation 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage scenarios. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining when to call it and the re-indexing effect, but it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses without losing clarity.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral effects like re-indexing. However, it doesn't detail the return values or potential errors, which could be helpful for an agent invoking it.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on usage and behavior without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 specific action ('reload all project documentation from disk') and resource ('documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_documentation' or 'get_document_index' by focusing on refreshing rather than querying. It explicitly mentions re-indexing and updating the search index, which further clarifies its unique role.

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: 'when docs are updated externally,' 'after creating new docs manually,' 'when search results seem stale,' or 'if you suspect docs have changed.' It also advises to 'refresh first' if new documentation isn't appearing in searches, offering clear alternatives to other tools like search or get operations.

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