Get Documentation Table of Contents

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description details pagination behavior, token limits, output modes, error conditions, and response structure (both JSON and Markdown). This provides comprehensive behavioral context without contradicting 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 well-organized into Args, Returns, Examples, Errors, and a Note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, every section adds value; minor redundancy with the schema descriptions could be trimmed.

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 7 parameters, a detailed output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully covers usage, return values (including JSON structure), examples, error handling, and a usage note. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for outputMode (explains 'compact' for flat lists) and responseFormat (distinguishes human-readable vs. machine-readable), and provides examples that clarify parameter usage.

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 first sentence clearly states 'Get the table of contents for a Jamf product's documentation.' The verb 'get' and resource 'table of contents' are specific, and the description distinguishes this from sibling tools like search or get_article by noting its role in browsing topics.

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 Note explicitly says 'Use this to discover what topics are available before searching or retrieving specific articles,' providing clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tools are listed externally.

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