redm-get-rsgcore-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all' but doesn't clarify what 'all' means (e.g., complete set, paginated results, format of return). It also doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is too vague to adequately inform agent behavior beyond the basic action.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves documentation. It doesn't explain what 'RSGCore' is, what format the documentation is returned in (e.g., raw text, structured data), or any limitations (e.g., size of response). For a tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is needed or missing.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all RSGCore framework documentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'redm-search-framework-docs' or 'redm-get-oxmysql-docs', which appear to serve similar documentation retrieval functions for different frameworks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'redm-search-framework-docs' (which might allow filtering) and 'redm-get-oxmysql-docs' (for different framework docs), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other documentation tools.

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