effect-documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that docs are fetched and concatenated, but omits important traits such as whether authentication is needed, any rate limits, output size or format, and whether the operation is read-only. The minimal behavior described is too shallow for an external-fetching tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no unnecessary detail, redundancy, or fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the most important action.

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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the concatenated output looks like, which could be critical for agents expecting to parse docs. It also does not clarify the relationship with the sibling tool. Given the overall simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'libraries' with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds context that the libraries refer to Effect libraries but does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Fetches and concatenates') and resource ('latest docs for the specified Effect libraries'). It includes a specific scope ('Effect libraries') and differentiates from the sibling 'effect-doc-links' by emphasizing concatenation of documents rather than just providing links.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. the sibling 'effect-doc-links' or any alternative. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and description.

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