topos_get_doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the output is Markdown and that the tool is a fallback for clients without resource fetching. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact topic list. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage rationale, and the list is scannable with parenthetical explanations. No wasted words.

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 tool is a simple read-only doc fetch with one parameter. The description covers the return format (Markdown), the precise when-to-use scenario, and enumerates all topics. Annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing is missing.

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 covers the single 'topic' parameter 100% with enum definitions, but the description strengthens the semantics by explaining what each topic contains, e.g., 'agent-contract (compact loop contract, read first for refactors)'. This is meaningful enrichment beyond the enum values.

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 opens with 'Return a Topos documentation page as Markdown,' a specific verb+resource statement that immediately disambiguates it from sibling tools (all focused on code analysis/refactoring). It clearly names the tool's function as documentation retrieval.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when your MCP client does not expose resource fetching to the agent. Clients that do surface resources should prefer the equivalent resource URI for efficiency.' This directly states when to use the tool and when to prefer an alternative, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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