get_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (Markdown), the extensive coverage scope (deploy, env vars, PostgreSQL, S3, REST API, MCP, domains, SSH, plans, OIDC), and the topic-filtering behavior — richer context than the annotations alone provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the opening sentence, followed by a dense but genuinely useful enumeration of covered topics, then the parameter behavior. The topic list earns its length because it lets the agent quickly judge whether the docs will cover a given user question; it is slightly long but 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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter documentation tool with an output schema, nothing essential is missing. Return format, coverage scope, and filtering behavior are all disclosed, annotations carry the safety profile, and the output schema answers return-value questions.

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% — the schema already documents the optional 'topic' parameter with concrete example keywords (overview, deploy, database, storage, env, auth, api, mcp, domains, ssh, plans). The description's mention of 'Optional topic returns only the matching section(s)' restates the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 ('Fetch'), resource ('BasicDeploy documentation'), and output format ('as Markdown'). The stated purpose — answering user questions and deploying correctly — clearly distinguishes it from all 17 sibling tools, none of which fetch documentation.

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 frames when to use it: whenever the agent needs documentation to answer user questions or deploy correctly 'without leaving the chat.' Context is clear and the tool's knowledge-base role is distinct from sibling container/deploy tools, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, which would earn a 5.

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