Perch display vocabulary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only fetch operation and lists the sections, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention default behavior when 'part' is omitted, error handling, or return format. The description covers the basic behavior but leaves some details unstated.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the parameter. No wasted words, and it covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool.

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 simple fetch tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the main content areas and the parameter role. However, it does not specify what happens when 'part' is not provided (e.g., returns all sections) or the structure of the returned data. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would round out the picture.

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 schema provides only an enum for 'part' with no property description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that passing 'part' fetches one section, clarifying the parameter's role. This goes beyond the raw schema, though it does not list the possible values (already in the enum) or elaborate on the default.

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's purpose: it is the canonical vocabulary (api-spec.json) covering display components, props, colors, host functions, handlers, scopes, and contexts. It names the specific resource and the content types, and it stands apart from sibling tools like perch_guide or perch_docs, which serve different reference needs.

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 implies when to use it (when you need vocabulary definitions) and mentions the 'part' parameter for fetching a section. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as perch_docs or perch_guide, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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