fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('Discovery-only'), reveals what it does NOT do ('Does NOT look up memory by UUID'), and mentions the domain of lookup ('route documentation'). It could be improved by stating if there are any side effects or auth requirements beyond the implicit login prerequisite mentioned.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence declares purpose/type, second clarifies what it does NOT do, third provides alternative usage path. No redundancy or filler.

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 (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, scope, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. No output schema means description needn't explain return values.

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 100% with one parameter ('id') described as 'Tool ID to fetch documentation for'. The description adds context by clarifying the 'id' is a 'Tool ID' (not UUID for memory) and that the output is 'route documentation'. This adds semantic value beyond the schema, though the schema already had adequate coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Returns route documentation for a tool by name' with a clear verb ('Returns'), resource ('route documentation for a tool'), and scope (by name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `recall`, which is for memory access, and correctly positions itself as a discovery-only introspection tool.

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 explicit usage guidance: it says when to use this tool ('Discovery-only'), when NOT to use it ('Does NOT look up memory by UUID'), and directs the agent to an alternative (`recall`) with a prerequisite ('after completing mcpLogin + mcpAuthenticate'). This fully addresses when-to-use vs not-to-use.

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