Lenis API Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main role is to add context. It explains the return format (formatted API documentation with types, defaults, descriptions), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by parameter details, return description, and concrete examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simplicity (reading documentation) and the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its parameters, return format, and usage examples. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by restating defaults, providing usage examples (e.g., 'lerp' for search), and clarifying the purpose of each parameter in the context of API lookups.

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 queries the complete Lenis API documentation, listing specific categories (settings, methods, events, properties). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on creating patterns, debugging, generation, or optimization, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 examples and mentions filtering by category and search term, which helps the agent understand how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparison to siblings, though the context of sibling names implies differentiation.

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