Claude Platform Docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' plus the list of returned fields (parameters, request body, responses) conveys it is a read operation and hints at the return shape, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown endpoints, auth requirements, or whether the data is cached/live.

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 that states the action and the returned content with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: it names the resource and the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. Only the note that the response detail is what substitutes for an output schema is left implicit.

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% and both parameters (path, method) are documented with examples and an enum in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific API endpoint') and enumerates what detail is returned (parameters, request body, responses). It implicitly distinguishes itself from doc/navigation/search siblings by being endpoint-specific, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implied: look up detail for an endpoint when you know its method and path. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to get_doc/search_docs for broader queries.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (title, description, URL, cleaned markdown). However it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, page size limits, or how sdk_languages changes the payload beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return contract immediately following. Nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the four returned fields, which is the key missing piece for a fetch tool. Remaining gaps (error behavior on invalid paths, truncation limits) are minor for a two-parameter read operation.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the accepted path forms and the sdk_languages filtering effect. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full content of a documentation page') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_docs or get_navigation within the description text.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusions; it never mentions that search_docs should be used for fuzzy lookup or discovery. That routing hint exists only inside the schema's path parameter description, not the tool description.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the hierarchical return shape, but it says nothing about permissions, caching, or whether filtering changes the structure returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the return shape, with no filler. Slightly more verbosity than strictly necessary for a two-optional-param read tool.

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 description correctly compensates by describing the returned hierarchy (tabs, groups, pages). Combined with full schema coverage on both optional params, an agent has what it needs to call this, though pagination or size expectations are unaddressed.

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 the schema already explains the tab filter and format enum, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'tabs' loosely connects to the tab parameter but adds no format or filtering semantics 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 and resource: 'Get the documentation navigation structure.' The return composition (tabs, groups, pages) makes the resource concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_doc or search_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary from context alone.

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?

'Useful for browsing available documentation topics' implies a discovery/orientation use case, which is the natural entry point before get_doc or search_docs. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (pages and API endpoints ranked by relevance, with context snippets), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, authentication, or rate limits for a tool whose schema defines a max of 50 results.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second describes the return. No filler or 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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (ranked pages/endpoints with snippets), which is the key missing structured info. Minor gaps around pagination and default limits remain undocumented anywhere.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose phrasing 'by keyword or phrase,' which maps to the query parameter and offers no syntax or format 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 (Search) and resource (Claude documentation) and clarifies scope by noting the guides and API reference are searched together. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_doc or get_api_endpoint, so an agent must infer this is the exploratory entry point versus their direct-fetch behavior.

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 word 'Search' and the mention of keyword/phrase input imply use when the exact document is unknown, contrasting implicitly with the get_* siblings for direct retrieval. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are provided.

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