agno_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a safe, read-only operation by describing the tool as getting documentation. It does not explicitly mention non-destructiveness, but the nature of a doc retrieval tool makes it obvious. Could mention that no side effects occur.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then breaks into an Args section with a list of example paths. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, how to use the parameter, when to use this tool vs. alternatives, and provides a complete set of example paths. No 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?

The single parameter 'path' has 0% schema coverage, meaning the schema provides no description. The full description compensates by listing example paths (e.g., 'basics/agents/', 'basics/tools/') and explaining the path structure, adding meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves Agno SDK documentation for writing agent code. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'agno_agentos' by specifying that tool covers deployed agent REST APIs and runtime features, while this tool is for SDK/library usage.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'This is for SDK/library usage... For deployed agent REST APIs and runtime features, use agno_agentos instead.' Additionally, it suggests using 'basics/' to see all topics and provides a list of example paths for common use cases.

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