aries_doc

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: token-efficient reading, conditional return based on `section` presence. No contradictions. Does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but acceptable for a read 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sets purpose, second explains modes, third provides usage guidance. No redundant information.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, description covers core functionality and usage. Could be improved by detailing return format of TOC, but sufficient for typical agent use.

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 covers 50% (only `path` described). Description adds meaning: explains `path` source and `section` effect. Provides context beyond schema, aiding correct parameter use.

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?

Description clearly states it reads a corpus doc token-efficiently, explaining two modes: returning TOC without `section` and section body with `section`. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing `aries_full_doc` implicitly and specifying use of `path` from search/catalog/tutorials.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use based on need for TOC vs specific section, and directs to use `path` values from other tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but sufficient for typical use.

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