Get Documentation Table of Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral traits: it retrieves navigation structure, supports pagination, and mentions token truncation and pagination. No contradiction, and it meaningfully extends beyond annotations.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors, Note). It front-loads the purpose. While some parts (like full Returns section) could be trimmed since output schema is described, it remains informative and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters with good annotations and described output schema, the description is extremely complete: it covers all parameters, return values, error scenarios, examples, and usage context. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining outputMode='compact' flattens children, responseFormat distinguishes human-readable vs machine-readable, and provides explicit enum values for product and default/range for others. This goes beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves the table of contents for a Jamf product's documentation. It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'table of contents', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jamf_docs_get_article and jamf_docs_search by noting that it's for browsing available topics before searching or retrieving articles.

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 says to use this tool 'to discover what topics are available before searching or retrieving specific articles,' providing clear context. It also lists examples and errors, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to sibling tools beyond the note, which could be more explicit.

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