tqs_reference

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as being offline and the no-arguments behavior that lists topics. There is no contradiction with annotations, but it doesn't describe what happens with the 'search' parameter or the return format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it is, how to list topics, and when to read relevant topics. This is highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only, and the description covers the core usage pattern. However, the 'search' parameter is omitted entirely, and there is no information about the content or format of the reference output. Given zero schema coverage, the description is not fully complete, though adequate for a basic reference 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters. It partially does by implying that no arguments lists topics and that a topic can be read, but it never names or explains the 'topic' or 'search' parameters explicitly. The 'search' parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 it is a 'Bundled offline reference for the TQS Python Interface' and explains the basic invocation ('Call with no arguments to list topics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tqs_run_script, which executes code, and tqs_introspect, which likely inspects state.

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 gives a direct usage directive: 'Read the relevant topic before writing TQS code with tqs_run_script', establishing when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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