Perch docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It transparently describes the three output modes: a list of page metadata without 'page', a full page with 'page', and search results for 'search'. It does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid page paths) or edge cases like both parameters being set, which are minor gaps. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 remarkably concise, fitting all essential information into two sentences (semicolon-separated). It front-loads the core purpose ('modding and API documentation') and then efficiently details the three operation modes. There is zero filler, and every clause contributes to understanding.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary ground: it explains how parameters alter the response and what the list output includes (id, title, description). It lacks explicit handling of invalid input or interactions between 'page' and 'search', but these are edge cases. Given the complexity, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does so effectively: 'page' changes the output from list to specific page, and 'search' triggers a text search. It even provides example page paths ('modding/your-first-widget', 'api/host'). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential parameter combinations or validation rules.

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 it provides modding and API documentation, with specific behaviors: lists pages without 'page', returns a specific page with 'page', and searches with 'search'. It uses a clear verb-resource structure and distinguishes itself from a generic 'docs' title. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like perch_guide or perch_vocabulary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage instructions for its own parameters (when to use 'page' vs. 'search', and the default list behavior). This implies the appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., perch_guide) or provide any 'when not to use' exclusions. The guidance is self-contained but lacks comparative context.

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