ik_tutorial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the no-argument behavior (list pages) versus argument behavior (read a page). It does not mention edge cases like invalid page names or the exact return type, but for a simple documentation reader this is reasonably transparent.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Read a tutorial page'), followed by the list-mode behavior and supported pages. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behaviors and valid inputs. It could be more complete by specifying what happens on invalid page names or what the output looks like, but for a tutorial reader these gaps are minor. Overall, it provides enough context for correct usage.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining that the 'page' parameter is optional and listing all acceptable values. It also clarifies that omitting the parameter triggers listing mode, giving the agent complete semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 function: 'Read a tutorial page, or list pages when no argument is given.' It uses a specific verb (read/list) and identifies the resource (tutorial pages). By listing the exact pages (index, installing, firstprogram, tour, stdlib, interrupts), it distinguishes itself from sibling reference/compiler tools.

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 clear usage context: pass a page name to read it, or omit the argument to list pages. It also enumerates valid page values, guiding correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use ik_reference instead), though the 'tutorial' framing implies the intended scope.

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