Return the full text of one documentation section by its id.
Call list_doc_sections() first to see valid ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the full text is returned, but not the behavior for invalid ids or potential errors. The prerequisite to call list_doc_sections mitigates some risk but doesn't fully cover behavioral transparency.
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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a direct usage tip. No superfluous words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and the prerequisite to obtain an id. It lacks explicit error-handling info, but the simplicity and output schema reduce the need for more detail.
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 no description for the 'id' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating the id identifies a documentation section and tells the user to obtain valid ids from list_doc_sections(). This is helpful but could specify the id format or type further.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'documentation section' accessed by id. This clearly differentiates it from siblings: list_doc_sections enumerates sections, while search_docs searches 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?
It explicitly instructs to call list_doc_sections() first to get valid ids, which provides a clear workflow and prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast with search_docs, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing sections, retrieving one section by ID, and searching across sections. There is no functional overlap between get, list, and search, and the descriptions make the boundaries clear.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get, list, search). Minor inconsistency: search_docs uses 'docs' while the other two use 'doc_section(s)', but the pattern is predictable and readable.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a documentation browsing server. Each tool earns its place and covers the essential actions without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the full documentation lifecycle for readers: enumerate sections, retrieve specific sections, and search. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.