query_docs

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 disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it downloads or indexes the archive persistently, what side effects occur, or what happens on large or inaccessible archives. The word 'Index' hints at possible stateful behavior but this is never clarified.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact argument list. It contains no filler and every part adds useful information. The format is easy to scan and directly actionable for an agent.

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, has an output schema, and its parameter semantics are mostly covered. Still, because there are no annotations and no usage-vs-alternative guidance, the description leaves gaps around side effects, network behavior, and when to prefer this over 'fetch_web_content'. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'url' ('URL to a ZIP file, e.g. GitHub archive') and a minimal gloss for 'query' ('Search query'). The query parameter semantics are still thin, with no detail on search syntax, scope, or matching behavior, but the basics are covered.

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 states a specific action ('Index and search documentation') on a specific resource ('ZIP archive URL'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'fetch_web_content'. It immediately tells an agent what the tool does and what input domain it operates on.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you have a ZIP archive URL containing documentation you want to query. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of the sibling tool 'fetch_web_content' as an alternative. The exclusion of alternatives is left to inference.

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