fetch_general

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

The description states the tool returns file contents, implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal disclosure is acceptable but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with usage guidance, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is useful.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential facts: what it does and when to use. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it could mention if the file is static or dynamic.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the contents of docs/general.md, which contains overview and common information about microCMS. It uses a specific verb ('returns contents') and identifies the resource. The purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_documents and search_document.

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 says 'when answering questions about microCMS, first use this tool,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some guidance gaps.

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