context7__query_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'consults current documentation.' It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of results are returned, whether there are limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, and the resolved-libraryId qualifier is placed at the end without bloating the structure. It sacrifices some completeness, but it is not verbose or poorly organized.

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 simple two-parameter tool this is only marginally adequate. The description does not explain what 'query' does, does not clarify the relationship with context7__resolve_library_id beyond an implied prerequisite, and does not describe return behavior or expected output. Given no output schema and no annotations, key context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for libraryId by calling it 'resolved.' The query parameter receives no explanation at all, and the overall parameter semantics remain almost entirely reliant on the bare parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('documentação atual no Context7'), and it references the prerequisite of a resolved libraryId, which separates it from the sibling context7__resolve_library_id. It is clear enough that an agent will know this tool is for querying docs rather than resolving library IDs.

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 phrase 'usando um libraryId resolvido' implies that a library ID must first be resolved, which points toward the sibling tool context7__resolve_library_id. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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