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 value by specifying the return format and topic list, with no contradictions.

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 concise: three sentences plus a topic list. It is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and actionable topic details. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple doc retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, use cases, topic details, and efficiency alternatives. It is fully sufficient.

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 a single enumerated parameter. The description enriches semantics by providing context for each topic (e.g., 'agent-contract (compact loop contract, read first for refactors)'), aiding correct selection.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'Topos documentation page', and the format 'Markdown'. It lists specific topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are all about assessment, evaluation, and refactoring.

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 is given: use when MCP client lacks resource fetching; otherwise prefer the resource URI for efficiency. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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