get_docs_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool 'Retrieves' and 'Returns the complete content', indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the page path is invalid) or potential prerequisites beyond the page identification step. For a straightforward read tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, immediately followed by actionable usage guidance and a return-type statement. Every sentence earns its place, keeping it concise and scannable.

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 2-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the return value ('complete content'), and the recommended workflow using sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further clarification. Minor gaps like error responses are not critical for this tool's nature.

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%, meaning both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little new parameter-level meaning—it reiterates 'relative path' and provides a usage context without elaborating on the parameters themselves. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Retrieves', the resource 'specific documentation page's content', and the method 'using its relative path'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns a single page's complete content and mentions the prior steps of using get_docs_index or search_docs. This makes it unambiguous which tool to pick.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool after identifying the relevant page via get_docs_index or search_docs, providing a clear workflow. It also states the intended use case ('detailed information about a known topic'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions are needed for this simple read operation.

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