explain_fluent_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no authentication or active Fluent project required.' It adds extra behavioral context about the list and peek flags, explaining how they alter the output. This goes beyond the annotations by describing optional behaviors, though it does not detail any potential side effects (which are unlikely given the read-only nature).

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then efficiently covers capabilities, flags, and alternatives. There is no fluff—every sentence provides useful guidance, making it easy 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?

For a documentation-lookup tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, parameters, alternatives, and prerequisites. It explains how to enumerate topics, peek, and switch formats, and it mentions that no active Fluent project is needed—critical for understanding this standalone read-only tool. The sibling context further clarifies the niche, making the description 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., topic: 'Required unless list=true,' list: 'Combine with topic to filter the index'). The description largely restates these details without adding substantial new meaning, so it does not elevate the baseline of 3. It briefly reinforces list/peek/format but does not compensate for any missing schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Look up Fluent SDK documentation for any API or guide.' It provides concrete examples of topics and keywords, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to 'get-api-spec for metadata-type specifications and get-snippet for code examples.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and well-differentiated.

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 this tool (for documentation lookups) and names alternatives for other use cases: 'Use get-api-spec for metadata-type specifications and get-snippet for code examples.' It also clarifies prerequisites by noting 'no authentication or active Fluent project required,' helping users decide when to call this tool without hesitation.

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