dojo_101

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as an 'introduction' and 'overview', which suggests it's informational and non-destructive. However, it doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's interactive, returns structured data, or has any side effects. The description adds context about its beginner-friendly nature but lacks details on execution 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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Beginner-friendly introduction to Dojo development') and follows with specific usage scenarios in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (introductory, 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and scope. However, it could be more complete by hinting at what the output might contain (e.g., tutorial steps, explanations) since there's no output schema, but it's adequate for this simple tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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: 'Beginner-friendly introduction to Dojo development' with specific verbs like 'starting a new Dojo project', 'understanding the basic workflow', and 'high-level overview of the Dojo development process and architecture'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dojo_config, dojo_logic, etc., which likely handle specific technical aspects rather than introductory guidance.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when starting a new Dojo project, understanding the basic workflow, or when you need a high-level overview'. It implies alternatives by distinguishing itself from sibling tools that likely serve more advanced or specific purposes, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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