docmgr_assess_quality

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the read-only nature ('Mode: Read-only') and detailing the return of quality scores and findings. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces these without contradiction.

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 with sections for purpose, usage, result, mode, criteria list, and workflow. It is comprehensive but not excessively verbose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., result and typical workflow), but overall it is efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and usage. It covers the tool's purpose, criteria, read-only mode, and typical workflow. Missing parameter explanations reduce completeness, but the overall context is sufficient for most agents.

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 should compensate by explaining each parameter. While it lists the seven quality criteria assessed, it does not clarify that the 'criteria' parameter allows selecting which ones to evaluate. The 'project_path' and 'docs_path' parameters are not explained in the description, relying solely on their schema names.

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 assesses documentation quality against 7 specific criteria, with scores and actionable findings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docmgr_validate_docs by focusing on quality assessment rather than validation or detection.

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 explicitly provides usage contexts: auditing documentation health, before major releases, and tracking improvements. It also suggests a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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