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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what the return value looks like, or how missing/invalid MSG numbers are handled. The only behavioral hint is that negative numbers are valid inputs, which is useful but narrow.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation first and concrete examples second. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is workable but under-specified: it omits the meaning of negative MSG values, error behavior for unknown numbers, and any routing versus sibling lookup tools. Adequate as a minimum, but with visible gaps.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "Số message, có thể âm: 62 | -49 | −88". The examples in the description (62, 63, -49, -88, -79) largely repeat what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb+resource combination ("tra nhanh tài liệu" = quickly look up a document) and pinpoints the lookup key as the MSG number. This distinguishes it somewhat from search_docs/list_docs by implying a direct numeric lookup, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts its scope with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples of MSG numbers suggest you call it when you already have an MSG identifier, as opposed to browsing or searching. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (read_doc, search_docs, list_docs).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, whether it recurses into subdirectories, whether permissions limit the listing, or what the entries look like (names only vs. paths). 'List' implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence, with the scope qualifier (docs/ plus the three filename patterns) placed where it does the most routing work. No 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?

No output schema exists, so the return shape arguably needs describing, yet the description never says what each listed entry contains (filename only, relative path, size). For a zero-parameter listing tool the essentials are covered, but the output contract is left unspecified.

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 schema has zero parameters, which hits the baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no parameter talk, and the glob patterns in the description usefully define the scope that a parameter might otherwise have carried.

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 gives a specific verb (Liệt kê/list) plus a precise resource scope: markdown protocol files under docs/ matching CLIENT_*, SERVER_*, AUDIT_*. That is far more concrete than a bare 'list files'. It does not, however, explicitly name siblings like read_doc or search_docs, so discrimination is left to inference from the resource wording.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus read_doc or search_docs, and no prerequisites. A discovery-then-read workflow is only weakly implied by the file listing. Per the calibration example for a description with 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites', a 2 is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait beyond the schema: the whole file is returned ('toàn bộ'), implying no truncation. It says nothing about missing-file behavior or response shape.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with examples in parentheses. No waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves the return representation and failure mode unspecified; an agent knows what to pass but not quite what to expect.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds real value: the example shows the extension may be omitted (CLIENT_STATS_LONG.md or CLIENT_STATS_LONG), which the schema's '.md file name' wording does not communicate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the ENTIRE docs file, with concrete examples (CLIENT_STATS_LONG.md). It is clearly distinguishable from list_docs/search_docs because of the whole-file scope, but it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of list_docs or search_docs. The examples hint at accepted filename forms but give no routing guidance or preconditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search spans the whole docs corpus and lists the kinds of content matched, but says nothing about result ordering, result caps (beyond the schema's max_hits), or read-only nature. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but thin.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than being exemplary.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and searchable content. It omits return shape and result behavior, but nothing critical blocks a correct invocation.

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 100%, so both 'query' and 'max_hits' are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's examples (MSG, field name, symptom) loosely reinforce what the query accepts but add no format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Tìm' = search) and resource ('toàn bộ docs') plus the scope (entire docs corpus). It distinguishes itself from read_doc/list_docs by the verb, but never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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 parenthetical (MSG, field names, symptoms) implies when the tool is useful, i.e. free-text lookup across docs. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (read_doc, get_msg, list_docs).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the output is a summary of server-side concepts, but does not disclose whether the call is read-only, how large the response is, whether it is cached, or what the return shape looks like for a zero-parameter tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness given how much scope it compresses into one clause.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema overview tool, the description identifies the topics the summary covers, which is the minimum needed to call it. It still omits the return format and the routing rule against sibling doc tools, leaving a gap an agent must guess at.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps 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 does contain a verb ('Tóm tắt' = summarize) and lists concrete content (gateway, wire rules, prioritized docs order), so the general intent is readable. However, 'cổng' is ambiguous (gateway vs. port), and the scattershot list of topics does not let an agent distinguish this server-level overview from sibling tools like read_doc or list_docs that also surface documentation content.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the obvious alternatives (read_doc, list_docs, search_docs). An agent modifying a LangLa client is told implicitly it should read this first, but no condition, prerequisite, or 'do not use when' guidance is given.

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