get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape (markdown plus heading outline) and a size characteristic (15k+ chars). It does not state whether output is truncated at that size or that the operation is purely read-only, leaving a modest 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?

Front-loads the return contract and the routing rule before the Args block; every sentence carries information. No redundant restatement of the tool name or boilerplate.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the two parameters are well covered. The only gap is behavior at the stated 15k+ char scale — truncation, pagination, or splitting is not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and largely does: doc_id is described as either a search_docs id or a path form ('items/index.md' / 'items'), and version is scoped to the path case with example keys including the default 'current'.

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?

Specific verb (Return) + resource (a whole documentation page) + output form (markdown plus heading outline). The word 'whole' implicitly contrasts with get_section, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer get_section unless the whole page is genuinely needed', and gives a concrete reason (pages reach 15k+ chars). This is a clear when-not-to-use statement naming the alternative.

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