get_documentation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main behavioral outcome—returning detailed documentation with syntax, parameters, deprecation notices, and examples—but does not mention error behavior, fallback detection details, or what happens when a symbol is not found. This is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly packed with useful information: the core purpose, the content of returned documentation, and the framework-scoping behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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-style lookup tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential success conditions: required path, optional framework, and what the returned documentation contains. It could mention failure/error behavior or explicitly contrast with search_symbols, but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that the framework parameter can scope the documentation directly and avoids the need for choose_technology, which helps an agent decide whether to fill it.

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: retrieving detailed documentation for specific symbols. It enumerates concrete content (Swift syntax declarations, parameters, deprecation notices, code examples) and distinguishes itself from the sibling choose_technology by noting direct framework scoping is possible without that tool.

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 conveys when this tool is appropriate: when you need detailed documentation for a specific symbol. It also gives clear context around the framework argument, noting that choose_technology is not required when scoping directly. It does not explicitly exclude search_symbols or semantic_search, but the 'specific symbols' framing supplies enough usage context.

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