help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed documentation' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what kind of documentation (e.g., tool-specific, server-wide), format (e.g., text, structured data), or any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Get detailed documentation' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed documentation' entails, the return format, or how it integrates with the server context (e.g., sibling tools like 'gemini'). For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Get detailed documentation' states a clear purpose (retrieving documentation) but is vague about what documentation it retrieves. It doesn't specify whether it's system documentation, API documentation, or something else, and doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'listSessions' or 'ping' that might also provide informational outputs.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is appropriate compared to other informational tools like 'ping' (which might test connectivity) or 'listSessions' (which might list active sessions).

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