Fetch Latest Syntax

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

The description complements the annotations by adding the fallback behavior for unknown topics, the read-only nature of the catalog, and the per-call cost. These are behavioral details beyond readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses a compact sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage trigger, fallback behavior, alternative routing, and cost/read-only note. No filler or repetition.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool returns, when to use it, how it behaves on unknown topics, and how it differs from alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the description adds no new meaning about individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents for 'topic' and 'framework'. The description's mention of 'one topic' and example values is redundant with the parameter descriptions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it delivers 'curated working imports, snippets, and migration notes' for a single topic. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming what to prefer for other needs (complete runnable file, open-ended lookup, exceptions), so an agent can distinguish this tool immediately.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when writing or migrating a fragment.' It also routes to alternatives with clear conditions—fetch_working_example for complete files, search_ai_framework_docs for open-ended lookup, diagnose_framework_error for exceptions—and explains fallback behavior for unknown topics.

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