get_parameter_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Return' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state this, nor does it disclose behavior for invalid parameter names or return format. It is adequate for a trivial lookup tool but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and an efficient Args section covering the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text, dictionary, list) or error behavior for invalid parameter names. While it gives enough to invoke the tool, an agent would benefit from knowing the response shape or error handling, especially given the lack of an output schema.

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 parameter 'parameter_name' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by explaining the parameter explicitly: it can be a specific string (with examples) or None to retrieve all parameters. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, making the parameter's purpose and allowed values clear.

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 returns documentation for RASPA2 simulation.input parameters, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('RASPA2 simulation.input parameters'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_available_forcefields or get_simulation_template by focusing on parameter documentation. The 'Args' section further clarifies the scope.

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 usage via the parameter_name argument: provide a specific name or omit it to get all parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but implicit.

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