get_yaml_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns full doc content and explains the two modes. However, it doesn't address edge cases like empty results, mutual exclusivity enforcement, or whether both parameters can be provided. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value. Examples are embedded efficiently without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to invoke it, and what it returns. It could mention what happens if neither parameter is supplied, but this is a minor gap for a doc retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the relationship between 'topic' and 'file' (using 'or'), providing concrete examples for each, and clarifying they are alternative modes. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 function: 'Search and retrieve FlutterFlow YAML reference documentation.' The verb is specific, the resource is well-defined, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with project files and pages rather than documentation.

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 usage context: use 'topic' for keyword search or 'file' for fetching specific docs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the distinction from siblings is evident. No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is adequate for a doc-lookup tool.

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