4D Documentation Viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of opening a browser and the specific URL format, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., browser pop-ups, network requirements), error handling, or platform dependencies. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks completeness for a tool with external effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and resource, the second provides the exact URL pattern. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the URL format, and the browser interaction. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of potential errors or platform constraints, but for this simple tool, it's largely sufficient.

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 the schema provides (it mentions the URL structure but doesn't elaborate on command_name format or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Open a 4D command documentation page in the default web browser'), identifies the resource ('4D command documentation page'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it opens a browser URL rather than retrieving or caching documentation like get_4d_command_docs or clear_4d_docs_cache.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to open documentation in a browser), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools that retrieve or cache documentation instead of opening a browser.

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