super_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an environment requirement ('SUPERDB_LSP_PATH'), which is useful context, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first part and adds a prerequisite in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavior described.

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 complexity (a tool for retrieving documentation based on query position) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation text, error messages) or other contextual details like performance or limitations. The environment requirement is noted, but more information is needed for a tool that interacts with a query language and LSP.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (query, line, character) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the position parameters interact or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get documentation for a symbol at a position in a SuperSQL query.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('documentation'), and context ('SuperSQL query'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'super_help' or 'super_info', which might also provide documentation or information.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires SUPERDB_LSP_PATH to be set,' which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'super_help' or 'super_info' (which might provide general help or info rather than symbol-specific documentation). The usage is implied but not explicitly compared to siblings.

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