Get Docs Info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint all true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable context that the documentation is a point-in-time copy, not live, which is critical for an agent to avoid relying on stale info. This goes beyond the annotations and is a key behavioral insight. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the straight purpose, then adds the crucial caveat about the documentation being a point-in-time copy. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. The structure is ideal: clear statement first, followed by actionable context.

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?

The description is complete for this zero-parameter tool. It explains what the tool returns (one line per application with API version, scrape time, endpoint/guide counts) and provides a clear use case (checking before trusting answers about recent changes). Given the simplicity and output schema present, nothing is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics a non-issue. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, indicating that the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool without any inputs.

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 the tool reports what documentation the server is serving crumb, and specifies the content: API version, scrape time, and counts of endpoints and guides. It is distinct from siblings because it provides an overview of the documentation set, whereas siblings like get_endpoint or get_guide focus on specific items. However, it could be slightly more explicit that it summarizes the whole documentation corpus vs. individual items.

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 advises checking this tool before trusting answers about recent API changes, making the usage context clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the implicit guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when this overview is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria but is still effective.

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