ask_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a 'compact cited answer' rather than raw retrieval hits, which provides additional behavioral context about the response format. However, it could elaborate more on the nature of citations or any side effects, though annotations already cover safety.

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 at two sentences, with no redundant or filler content. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides usage guidance, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple query tool with good annotations and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and distinguishes from a key sibling. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., format of cited answer) and does not mention the top_k parameter. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 has 2 parameters (query, top_k) with 0% description coverage in schema. The tool description only implicitly mentions the query via context, but does not explain top_k or specify formats. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 asks Aruba/HPE docs for a compact cited answer. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_api by specifying usage for prose/how-to questions versus exact endpoint/schema questions, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage context: use for prose/how-to questions when a short answer is desired, and not for exact endpoint/schema questions which should use lookup_api. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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