discover_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'crawl', which suggests a potentially resource-intensive or time-consuming operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'discover' entails (e.g., returns paths, metadata). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool that likely interacts with external resources.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 a 'crawl' operation (likely involving network calls and parsing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'discover' returns (e.g., list of paths, structured data), error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with potential behavioral nuances, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('crawl') and target ('main docs page') with a specific purpose ('discover all available documentation paths'). It distinguishes from 'fetch_docs' (likely fetching content), 'list_sections' (listing sections), and 'search_docs' (searching), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_docs', 'list_sections', or 'search_docs'. The description implies usage for initial discovery of documentation structure, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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