observe_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool shows reference material, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and then provide usage instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. Perfectly concise.

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 documentation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and usage context. It lacks details about the output format (e.g., text, links), but is otherwise complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed per guidelines (baseline 4 for 0 params).

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 shows OPAL query language reference and examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like observe_query which executes queries. The verb 'Show' and resource 'OPAL query language reference and examples' are specific 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 says 'Call this before writing OPAL pipelines,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools implies the differentiation.

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