Get Foreman DSL Documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Reads from cache,' which hints at performance or data source behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and a reference for further details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a documentation retrieval tool with one parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral traits, which are essential for effective tool invocation. The reference to external sections helps but doesn't suffice for full contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'section.' It adds some meaning by linking to 'foreman://documentation/dsl/sections for available sections,' which provides context for valid values. However, this is minimal and doesn't fully explain the parameter's purpose or usage, leaving it inadequately documented.

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 purpose: 'Reads from cache and returns the documentation of available macros for template writing in Markdown format based on provided section.' It specifies the verb ('reads', 'returns'), resource ('documentation of available macros'), and format ('Markdown format'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs', which appear related to documentation retrieval.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'Refer to foreman://documentation/dsl/sections for available sections,' which implies where to find valid inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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