get-library-docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'smart chunking and pagination for token efficiency,' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not clarify API conventions, error handling, or the nature of the returned content (e.g., a single page vs. all chunks). The transparency is moderate but incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and key behavioral features without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 doc-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but leaves gaps. The pagination mechanism, return format, and behavior for missing topics are unspecified. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of output schema, a more thorough description would improve completeness.

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 descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate heavily. However, the description does not add any additional meaning about parameter interactions (e.g., how page and version affect results), and the 'library' parameter has no textual description beyond its enum. Overall, the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('specific documentation'), with added detail about chunking and pagination. It differentiates from 'search-docs' or 'semantic-search-docs' by implying targeted retrieval, but does not fully distinguish from those siblings without further context.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-docs or semantic-search-docs. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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