roshan_alefba_docs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description indicates a read-only documentation retrieval behavior, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free nature or any behavioral traits. However, for a documentation tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences (including a Persian translation) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Persian translation adds redundancy for English-only users, but remains appropriately sized for its bilingual context.

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 role as a documentation meta-tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what it returns, when to use it, and how to filter. It also links to official docs, making it complete for its purpose.

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 parameter 'topic' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds meaning by stating it is optional and used to filter to one tool or doc link. This compensates for the missing schema description, though possible values or format are not specified.

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 returns documentation about Alefba OCR and the MCP tools themselves, with a specific verb 'Return documentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are document operation tools, by highlighting its role as a documentation/guidance tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to learn what the server does, which tools exist, and where to read the official docs before calling other tools.' This provides clear usage context and implies not using it for direct operations.

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