anylogic_toc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavior — an empty scope returns a combined summary of guide and API — and implies a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about output size, whether the API map is paginated, or how deep the tree goes, which matters for a documentation index that can be large.

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?

A one-line purpose sentence followed by tight per-parameter notes; the most important framing (what the tool returns) is front-loaded and every line earns its place. The Args block leans on an indented list rather than prose, which is efficient but slightly less scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both of the two parameters are documented semantically. For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter index tool with an output schema, this is essentially complete; only the section/scope interaction is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the allowed values for scope ('guide' or 'api'), explains the empty default, and clarifies that section is a section prefix for the guide but a package name for the API — a distinction the schema does not carry at all. Minor gap: it does not say whether section is ignored or errors when scope is empty.

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?

States a specific resource: an index of the documentation containing sections, packages and available pages — an agent immediately understands this is a table-of-contents enumeration rather than content retrieval. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it replaces (anylogic_read, anylogic_search), so the distinction is inferable but not stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is a map, so an agent infers it should be called first to discover structure before reading. There is no explicit 'use this instead of anylogic_search when...' statement, nor any prerequisite or coverage caveats beyond the default-behavior note that an empty scope returns a summary of both.

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