Doco Concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds extra value by warning that candidates are strictly separated from explicit concepts, which prevents an agent from expecting candidates in list/get results. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single, compact sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and uses a colon-structured list to enumerate supported operations. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 10 parameters, 4 actions, and a large sibling set, the description covers the broad scope and the output schema handles return values, but it omits pagination behavior and relationship-direction parameters, and it does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like doco_traverse. It is sufficient for a basic invocation but not a complete selection guide.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by semantically grouping the actions: list/get are for explicit concepts, candidates is a separate operation, and traverse follows concept relationships. This clarification directly affects how action, status, and min_confidence should be used, adding meaning that the schema's generic descriptions do not provide.

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 states a clear purpose: a unified read layer for concepts, listing operations (list, get, traverse, candidates) on a specific resource. It distinguishes concepts from generic search/traversal tools by adding the notion of strict separation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling doco_traverse, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 wording implies this is the unified read access point for the concept layer and that candidates must be listed via the candidates action rather than list/get. However, it gives no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, and with siblings like doco_traverse, doco_search, and doco_edit_concepts available, an agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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