veto_docs_fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are cached for 24 hours and returns documentation for injection into agent context, providing behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and immediately convey value. Every sentence adds information: first defines the tool's function and scope, second adds caching and injection context. No redundant or filler phrases.

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 simplicity of the tool (fetch docs for known ecosystems), the description covers what it does, the scope, caching behavior, and return intention. No output schema is needed as the description clarifies the output is for agent context injection. Complete for the task.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond mentioning the ecosystems (which are already in the schema enum). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it fetches documentation for npm, PyPI, or crates.io packages, specifying the action (fetches) and resource (version-accurate docs). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing elimination of hallucinated APIs, which sets it apart from siblings that might generate or summarize documentation.

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 use when current, accurate API docs are needed (e.g., to avoid hallucinations), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_doc_gen or other documentation tools. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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