get_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that documentation is read from compiled .beam files and that no network access is involved, which are important behavioral traits. It could add more about error handling or return format, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 compact and well-structured with sections for purpose, when to use, not for, and examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, examples, and exclusions. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 has 100% coverage for the single reference parameter, and the description adds substantial value by providing example formats (Module, Module.function, Module.function/arity, callback prefix). This gives the agent concrete syntax guidance beyond the schema's generic type definition.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving @moduledoc/@doc documentation for Elixir modules/functions. It specifies the resource (Elixir documentation) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reads from compiled .beam files locally and is not for finding callers or evaluating code.

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 provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT FOR' sections, naming alternatives like xref_callers and project_eval. It also clarifies the local-only nature (no network) and gives concrete usage examples, making it clear when to select this tool.

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