Fetch a non-method Bitrix24 documentation article by exact title (use bitrix-search with doc_type other). Returns Markdown with title, metadata (URL/module/category), description, and content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title_or_hint | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch') and return format (Markdown with title, metadata, description, content). However, it does not mention error handling, exact-match failure behavior, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch. Some transparency is provided, but gaps remain.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately providing return format and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, with no waste 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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure in detail. It covers the core use case and provides a pointer to the search tool for finding titles. Minor omissions include behavior on not-found and clarification of the 'or_hint' parameter, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 zero description coverage for the parameter, but the description clarifies that the parameter is the 'exact title' and suggests using bitrix-search to find it. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the parameter name 'title_or_hint' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about whether a hint is acceptable versus an exact title.
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 function: 'Fetch a non-method Bitrix24 documentation article by exact title'. It identifies the resource (non-method articles) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bitrix-method-details and bitrix-event-details by explicitly marking them as not applicable.
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 provides clear context: use this for non-method articles, and it references `bitrix-search` with doc_type other to find the exact title. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for methods/events) or name alternatives beyond the search tool. The context is present but not fully explicit.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: bitrix-search is for general searching, while the other four tools each fetch details for a specific documentation type (app development, articles, events, methods). The descriptions explicitly differentiate them by doc_type and output format, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'bitrix-' prefix, followed by a descriptive noun or noun phrase (e.g., 'search', 'method-details'), and ending with '-details' for the four detail-fetching tools. This verb_noun-like structure is uniform throughout the set, making it predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation server focused on Bitrix24. It includes a search tool and four detail tools covering key documentation types, which is efficient and avoids bloat. Each tool serves a clear, necessary function without redundancy.
The tool surface is complete for the domain of fetching Bitrix24 documentation. It covers the full workflow: searching across all doc types with bitrix-search, then retrieving detailed information for each specific type (app development, articles, events, methods). There are no obvious gaps, as agents can seamlessly move from search to details without dead ends.