gopher_fetch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns structured JSON for LLM consumption, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by supported types and a structured Args section. 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?

Given the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers what the tool does, supported types, and parameter format. It does not explain return structure but that is handled by the output schema.

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 single parameter 'url' has schema coverage 0%, but the description provides an example URL and states it must be a full Gopher URL, adding meaningful context beyond the schema type.

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 explicitly states it fetches Gopher menus or text by URL and lists supported item types, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gopher_batch_fetch (batch) and gemini_fetch (different protocol).

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 implies when to use (for any standard Gopher URL) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like gopher_batch_fetch for multiple URLs.

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