get_foreman_api_resource_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'fetches' documentation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (simple single-parameter fetch), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, return format, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly without structured data to rely on.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'resource' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating it's for 'given Foreman API resource', but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid resource (e.g., format, examples, or constraints), failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('fetches') and target ('documentation for given Foreman API resource'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'Get Foreman DSL Documentation', which appear to serve similar documentation-fetching purposes but for different resource types.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'call_foreman_api' (which likely performs API calls rather than fetching docs) or clarify distinctions between API resource docs and DSL docs, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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