get_keyword_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain the modes and session scoping, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose potential behaviors like the library-mismatch error and artifact externalisation (though these are detailed in the schema). The description adds some context but not a comprehensive behavioral profile.

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: two sentences and a list of modes. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, multiple modes) and the presence of a detailed output schema and exhaustive schema descriptions, the description is sufficient. It covers the primary use case and mode enumeration. It omits some nuances (e.g., externalisation) but those are covered in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the modes and the role of session_id (e.g., scoping the lookup), but it does not go deeply beyond what the schema already documents. It meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 a specific action ('Get keyword/library docs or parse a signature') with a concrete verb and resource. It also enumerates distinct modes, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from other lookup tools like find_keywords.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call this before execute_step when you know the keyword name but not its arguments.' It also lists modes, which implicitly guide when each is appropriate. This is clear, actionable guidance with no reliance on inference.

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