starwind_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'Fetches' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it produces no side effects, requires authentication, or has any rate limits. This is adequate but lacks the explicitness needed for agents to confidently assess risk.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb 'Fetches' and immediately conveys the resource. It packs multiple categories without wasted words. While slightly long due to enumeration, every clause adds relevant scope. No unnecessary repetition.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the tool's scope adequately. However, it omits guidance on how the 'full' parameter differs from a non-full request, when to use different surfaces, and how to combine parameters effectively. The context is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for complex queries.

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 description coverage is low (33%: only the 'full' parameter has a description). The description adds contextual meaning by enumerating categories that align with the 'surface' enum values, helping an agent understand what each surface likely refers to. However, 'topic' remains entirely undefined, and the relationship between 'topic' and 'surface' is not clarified. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves ambiguity.

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 action ('Fetches'), the resource ('current Starwind UI v3 documentation'), and the scope across multiple categories (styled components, primitives, Runtime, migration, framework guides). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like starwind_init, starwind_add, starwind_search, or starwind_migrate, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool starwind_search, or when to avoid it. It lists what the tool fetches but does not explain prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or the relationship between the surface enum values and the listed categories. An agent must guess the intended usage context.

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