Get project docs

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral detail: the fallback behavior when no arguments are supplied, the ranked-by-keyword-hits selection, and the fixed cap of 3 sections for topic-only calls. It doesn't discuss truncation interplay with max_chars in any depth, which is the only notable gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the three invocation modes in a predictable path/topic/neither progression. Every clause carries a distinct constraint; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still specifies what each mode yields. With 4 optional parameters, zero required, and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in any mode.

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 goes beyond the per-field schema text by explaining the interaction semantics: path alone returns the file or just the heading-matched section when topic is also present, and topic alone switches to ranked multi-section retrieval. That combinatorial meaning is not derivable from the schema fields individually.

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 (read project documentation) and enumerates the exact file patterns covered (README*, CONTRIBUTING*, root *.md, docs/**/*.md), which is unusually precise. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_codebase, so the boundary between doc reading and code search is left to inference.

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 gives explicit mode-selection rules: path+provision to fetch a file or matching section, topic only to get the 3 best keyword-ranked sections, neither to get the README intro plus docs list. That is clear operational guidance for invoking the tool. It stops short of naming when a sibling (e.g. search_codebase) would be preferable.

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