wcps_doc_chapters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. However, the nature of listing chapters implies no destructive behavior, but this is not confirmed.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds valuable usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It also mentions the related tool (wcps_get_chapter), completing the workflow context.

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?

There are no parameters (0), so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details as none exist.

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: listing detailed WCPS documentation chapters. It uses the verb 'Lists' and specific resource 'WCPS documentation chapters', making the function unambiguous. Even without sibling tools, it is very clear.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool: 'Use when the crash course is not detailed enough' and after a failed query to consult the 'common-errors' chapter. This gives clear context and distinguishes its use case.

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