get_backend_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the getter behavior as returning documentation, but does not disclose any details about invalid inputs, error behavior, or what the documentation includes. This is a simple read operation, so the lack of richer transparency is acceptable but leaves 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' block repeats parameter info from the schema, which is slightly redundant, but overall it earns its place with examples.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning that valid backend types are listed by list_available_backends, but given the simple nature and existing output schema, no major gaps exist.

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 provides no description for backend_type, but the tool description explains it with examples ('MemoryBackend', 'CursorBackend', 'ApiBackend'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It does not, however, list all valid values or point to a complete source.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed documentation for a specific clearskies backend type', which is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_available_backends. The examples of backend types further clarify the scope.

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 usage when you have a specific backend_type to fetch documentation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_available_backends or other get_*_info tools. No when-not/alternatives are provided.

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