docs_home

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool is, not what it does or its safety profile. It doesn't mention whether it's read-only, what output to expect, or any limitations, leaving the agent to infer safe 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 extremely concise, front-loading 'Orientation' and using a second sentence for critical usage guidance. It wastes no words, though the terse style sacrifices some clarity.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema orientation tool, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool covers and to call it first, but doesn't specify the format or detail of the orientation content, which could lead to uncertainty.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly doesn't add parameter details, as there are none to explain.

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 identifies this as an orientation tool for registered llms.txt sources and how to search/fetch, which distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools. However, it lacks a strong verb (e.g., 'provides orientation') and is somewhat noun-phrase based.

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 explicit instruction 'Call this first' provides clear when-to-use guidance as an entry point, and the mention of covering search/fetch implies its role relative to siblings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the imperative is strong.

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