get_documentation_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' suggests a read-only operation, and listing the expected outputs adds some transparency, but it does not mention effects, filtering semantics, or any operational caveats.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence captures the primary purpose and expected outputs without wasted words. It is easy to scan and directly actionable.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers the key return concepts. It could be stronger with usage guidance or examples, but the listed outputs are sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool provides.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how sourceId or docVersion influence the result, but the schema already supplies adequate baseline semantics.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource (the hierarchical documentation map) and lists distinct output components (page tree, section headings, token budget footprints). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_doc or search_docs.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_doc or list_sources. The description implies an overview/structural use case, but it never states conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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