redm-get-vorp-docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, how the documentation is returned (e.g., format, structure), potential rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all VORP framework documentation'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 complexity of retrieving documentation (which could involve large datasets or specific formats), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain return values, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent guessing about the output and operational details.

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 doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.

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 resource ('all VORP framework documentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'redm-search-framework-docs' by implying retrieval of all documentation rather than searching. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope or format of what 'all' entails, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'redm-search-framework-docs' suggest a search function, but the description doesn't clarify if this tool is for bulk retrieval, initial exploration, or other contexts. The lack of when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements leaves the agent without direction.

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