mcdev_get_doc_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it returns a JSON page with UTF-16 offsets and nextOffset null at the end, and retrieved claims are not endorsements. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a retrieval tool the key return and pagination behavior is documented.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by return and pagination details. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value; it does so by describing the JSON page, offsets, and end-of-pagination signal. With complete parameter schema coverage, this is sufficient for correct invocation, though explicit error behavior is not covered.

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 coverage is 100%, with id, limit, and offset all fully described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond identifying id as a Source ID from search, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the detailed work.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieve a bundled wiki section by its search Source ID. It also notes the section is unreviewed, which helps distinguish this retrieval tool from search and review-oriented siblings.

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 phrase 'by its search Source ID' gives clear usage context: this tool is a follow-up to mcdev_search_docs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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