agno_agentos

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 explains what the tool retrieves (documentation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it makes network calls, caching behavior, response format, or whether it is real-time. A 3 is appropriate because it covers basic purpose but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 well-structured with bullet points for sections and usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses concise sentences. Every sentence serves a clear function without redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter guidance, and exclusion criteria. Despite having an output schema not detailed, the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'path' parameter with practical examples like 'api/', 'features/memories', etc., and advises 'Leave empty for overview.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter highly actionable.

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 'Get AgentOS runtime and deployment documentation' and lists specific sections, distinguishing it from sibling tools like agno_docs and agno_reference. The verb 'Get' and resource 'AgentOS runtime and deployment documentation' make the purpose 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 states 'USE THIS TOOL for questions about...' and provides a list of use cases, followed by 'For SDK code usage, use agno_docs or agno_reference instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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