godocs_metadata

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 what the tool returns (metadata only, not full docs), lists specific response fields, and clarifies limitations. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns, response details, args, example), each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage, returns, parameter details, and an example. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more explicit details on the response structure or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'package' as 'Go package path' with concrete examples ('github.com/gin-gonic/gin', 'golang.org/x/tools'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully addresses the parameter semantics gap.

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 ('Get Go package metadata'), resource ('from godocs.io'), and scope ('name, summary, URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_godocs_docs. It explicitly names what it retrieves versus what it doesn't, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that specifies when to use this tool ('need basic package info or links to documentation sites') and when not to ('does NOT include actual documentation content'), with a clear alternative named ('fetch_godocs_docs'). This provides comprehensive guidance on tool selection.

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