get_doc

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 usefully discloses that output is raw markdown and complete rather than summarized or truncated, but it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or behavior when the doc is missing.

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 core purpose is a single front-loaded sentence, and the Args block is compact. The docstring-style formatting is slightly mechanical but wastes no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both inputs are documented with examples. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the six sibling tools and any failure behavior for unknown names.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents both parameters with concrete path examples and enumerates the accepted category values ('stacks', 'models', 'apis', 'platforms', 'custom', 'all') that the schema does not constrain via enum.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (doc) plus the return form ('complete raw markdown'), which implicitly separates it from search_docs' snippet-style results. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching 'complete raw' content suggests a lookup-by-known-name flow, but nothing says when to prefer this over search_docs or list_docs, nor that search should come first when the name is unknown. The category filter hints at narrowing, but no when/when-not rule is stated.

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