lpm_docs

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

The description explains the three modes of operation (no params, with `page`, with `query`) but does not disclose output details, rate limits, or authentication needs. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second detailing parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

For a documentation tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality. However, without an output schema, mentioning what the response contains (e.g., text, links) would improve completeness.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters affect behavior (e.g., 'returns that specific page', 'searches page titles'), going beyond the schema alone.

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's purpose ('Search or read LPM documentation') and lists specific topics (setup, CLI commands, publishing, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_api_docs or lpm_package_info.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user asks how to use LPM itself') and describes behavior for each parameter combination, but does not provide exclusions or mention when not to use it.

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