Project Goboscript Docs Help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that calling with no arguments returns the index and calling with a page returns raw markdown, making the read-only nature and output shape evident. No hidden side effects or state changes are implied or omitted.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, two usage modes, and when-to-use guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this description covers how to obtain the index, how to fetch a specific page, and when to use it. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema covers that, and error handling for invalid paths is minor for a read-only docs tool.

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 already documents the 'page' parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics: no arguments yields the index, and setting 'page' to an index path returns that page. This clarifies the relationship between the parameter and the two output modes beyond the schema's static description.

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 ('Read') and resource ('goboscript language documentation'), and clearly distinguishes the two invocation modes. This separates it from sibling tools, which operate on projects, social features, or SB3 files. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly advises using this tool whenever unsure of a block or reporter name, with examples and rationale (guessing wastes build cycles). This provides clear situational guidance and an implicit alternative (not guessing), though it does not name a specific sibling tool because none is directly comparable.

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