Read Hermes Kanban API docs snapshot section

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile thoroughly. The description adds valuable context about the offline nature ('bundled', 'without network, API, model, or tool calls') which explains performance and reliability characteristics. This adds genuine behavioral information beyond what annotations convey.

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 single, information-dense sentence with zero wasted words. Every phrase earns its place: 'bundled' (offline), 'by slug or resource URI' (dual addressing), 'without network, API, model, or tool calls' (safety/performance). Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has a read-only docs retrieval purpose, is accompanied by strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), has an output schema, and 100% parameter schema coverage. The description adds the critical contextual nuance (offline behavior) beyond all structured fields. For a simple docs-reader tool, this is fully complete.

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 100%, so both parameters (uri and section) are documented in the schema. The description adds context by showing example URI formats (hermes-docs://api-server/post-v1-chat-completions, hermes-docs://kanban-api/get-api-plugins-kanban-board) which demonstrates the URI pattern and links to the section param's source list. This exceeds the baseline-3 value for full-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Read one bundled Hermes Kanban API docs section by slug or hermes-docs://kanban-api/* resource URI without network, API, model, or tool calls.' It identifies the exact resource types (kanban-api docs) and the mechanism (slug or URI), distinguishing it from generic resource reads. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like hermes_api_docs_read by scoping to kanban-api.

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 explains the delivery mechanism (bundled, no network/API/model/tool calls), which implies offline/local usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like hermes_kanban_api_docs_list for discovery vs this for retrieval, but the schema's 'section' param referencing hermes_kanban_api_docs_list implies the workflow. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named exclusion.

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