lm_docs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is a significant gap: the description mentions 'sync: force refresh' implying state mutation, but nonspecific. The description does not explain that sync force-refreshes and therefore may change data, nor does it clarify whether any action is destructive or requires permissions. With readOnlyHint=false, the description carries a higher burden and only lightly touches on sync's side effect.

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 dense, semicolon-separated list that is front-loaded with a purpose statement but becomes a run-on inventory of actions. It is efficient in word count but sacrifices readability; an agent must parse multiple concepts in one sentence.

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 tool with nine actions, eight parameters, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete regarding scope, pagination, and media handling, but it omits key behavioral details like return formats, the effect of sync on system state, and which parameters pair with which actions. It is a minimum-viable description for a complex tool and would benefit from structured action-to-parameter mapping.

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. It does explain that offset paginates results or characters, that scope=all includes drafts/configs, that limit controls pagination implicitly, and that path/section are used by read/catalog. However, it does not map parameters to specific actions, leaving ambiguity about which of the eight parameters apply to which of the nine actions. The description adds partial meaning but not enough to fully document eight parameters.

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 packs nine action verbs into a list of what the tool can do, making the tool's overall purpose (documentation/knowledge access) reasonably clear but each action's specific purpose is buried in dense latch-on phrases. It is distinguishable from siblings like lm_rag_search or lm_diagnose by its documentation focus, though it doesn't explicitly say 'this is the documentation tool versus X'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use lm_docs versus alternatives like lm_rag_ask or lm_status. The brief parentheticals hint at what each action does but do not explain when an agent should choose one action over another, or when to use this tool instead of a sibling RAG tool.

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