4D Documentation Viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it fetches from a specific URL, extracts content from the main tag, and implements local caching. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by operational details and caching benefit. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (fetching web content with caching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context about the source URL, extraction method, and caching. It could improve by mentioning the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML) or error cases, but it's largely complete for the task.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid command names beyond the schema's examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get documentation for a 4D command' with specific details about fetching from a URL and extracting content. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving and caching documentation rather than clearing cache or opening in browser. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'open_4d_command_in_browser' beyond the caching aspect.

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 context through the caching benefit ('faster subsequent access'), suggesting this tool is preferred for repeated access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'open_4d_command_in_browser' (e.g., for programmatic use vs. human viewing) or provide any exclusion criteria.

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