Read Hermes API docs snapshot section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds the offline/no-calls behavioral guarantee, which is a meaningful extra beyond annotations. It doesn't describe return format, error behavior, or what 'defaults to full' renders, but annotations carry most of the burden here.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place — the purpose, the offline guarantee, and the acceptable input formats are all conveyed in one tight sentence. Zero waste.

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 read-only, offline docs-reading tool with a rich output schema and full parameter coverage, this is largely complete. Could mention what happens when no uri/section is provided (the 'full' default, which is only partially implied by the param schema's 'Defaults to full'). Minor gap given the tool is otherwise well specified.

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 both parameters (uri and section) are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds the default behavior ('Defaults to full'), which is a slight value-add but not substantially beyond what a good schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read one bundled Hermes API server docs section by slug or resource URI'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like hermes_api_docs_list and hermes_kanban_api_docs_read by explicitly naming the alternate resource format (hermes-docs://api-server/*).

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?

States it operates 'without network, API, model, or tool calls', which is useful usage context. Also implicitly distinguishes from list tools via 'one section by slug'. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives beyond the inherent read-versus-list distinction, and there's no explicit 'use this when X, use that when Y' guidance.

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