Get Documentation Table of Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the return structure (mapId, contentId, tokenInfo, pagination), how outputMode affects nesting, how structuredContent flattens the TOC with depth values, and how markdown vs JSON differ in exposing contentIds. It also discloses error types and the relationship with jamf_docs_get_article. This goes well beyond the 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?

Though long, the description is efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors, Note). Every sentence adds functional value: parameter details, return format, usage examples, error handling, and cross-tool integration. The opening sentence front-loads the purpose, and the note clarifies edge cases without redundancy.

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's complexity—7 parameters, multiple output formats, pagination, structuredContent behavior, and integration with jamf_docs_get_article—the description is remarkably complete. It covers all aspects an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, how parameters affect behavior, what the return looks like, errors, and examples. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for this contextual detail, and the description delivers it fully.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, enum values, and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema, such as clarifying that outputMode='compact' gives 'flat list without nested children' (schema just says 'brief output') and explaining how responseFormat affects whether contentIds are visible. It also shows example parameter combinations. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the table of contents for a Jamf product's documentation.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on navigation structure and topic discovery rather than search or article retrieval. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover what topics are available before searching or retrieving specific articles.' It also notes that large TOCs are paginated, implying you should handle pagination. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with every sibling tool, the discovery-first guidance is clear and useful.

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