xano_cli_docs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds context by explaining what the tool returns (documentation) and how to navigate topics. No contradictions, and the description reinforces the safe, read-only nature.

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 structured with clear sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is fairly long but every sentence adds value, providing topic lists and usage patterns. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-organized.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, topic enumeration, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% with descriptions and enums for both parameters. The description extends this by suggesting which topic to start with (e.g., 'start') and explaining the detail_level options with examples, adding practical guidance 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's purpose as 'Get documentation for the Xano CLI' and lists specific topics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xano_meta_api_docs by including an 'integration' topic that clarifies when to use CLI vs Meta API.

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 Usage section provides explicit guidance: start with 'start', use 'auth' or 'profile' for authentication, and use specific topics for command reference. It also directs to 'integration' for choosing between CLI and Meta API, effectively differentiating from siblings.

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