fetch-library-docs

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

No annotations provided; the description only says 'automatically retrieves up-to-date documentation from the web.' It omits details on caching, network requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The agent cannot infer potential side effects or constraints.

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 short sentences that state purpose and automation. No fluff, but could be more efficient by including key behavioral notes in the same length.

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?

No output schema; the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, markdown, error format). Given simple parameters, the agent still lacks information to anticipate the response format. Also unclear how this differs from 'search-docs' in terms of scope.

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%, so the schema fully describes both parameters. The description adds 'Optional: Specific topic to search for' for query, but this merely restates the schema's description. No additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 fetches official documentation from online sources for libraries/frameworks, with examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-doc' (likely local addition) and 'search-docs' (possibly local search), but more explicit differentiation would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or scenarios where other tools like 'search-docs' might be preferred.

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