docs_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns documentation content and lists available topics. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid topics, potential errors, or whether the content is static or updated. The simplicity of the tool limits the need for extensive disclosure, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of available topics, and clear args/returns. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what topics are available, and what is returned. It is complete for its context.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'topic' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing three valid topic values ('mph_api', 'physics_guide', 'workflow') and briefly explaining each, adding significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 states 'Get documentation on a specific topic' and lists three available topics, clearly defining the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'docs_list' tool, leaving the differentiation implied rather than stated.

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 implies usage (use when you need content for a specific documentation topic) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docs_list' or 'pdf_search'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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