Jmp Fetch Live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool bypasses the local index and fetches live from jmp.com, implying a network read operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, network dependency, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but not rich. It adds some context beyond the name but lacks depth on error behavior or performance implications.

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 with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and mechanism ('Fetch a documentation page live from jmp.com, bypassing the local index.'), and the second provides direct usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness 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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, how it differs from the index-based approach, and when to use it. The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 describes the 'url' parameter with a specific format ('A https://www.jmp.com/support/help/en/19.1/... URL'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond its existence and purpose, which is baseline for full coverage. It neither detracts nor enhances the schema's clarity.

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 action ('Fetch a documentation page live from jmp.com') and the resource (documentation page at jmp.com). It also distinguishes itself from the local index and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_jmp_page by saying 'bypassing the local index.' This is specific and unambiguous.

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: 'Use when a page may be newer than the index, or is not indexed.' This provides clear context for selection. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., get_jmp_page) or state when NOT to use it, which would strengthen the guidance. Still, the 'when to use' is explicit and sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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