get-doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the fetch target (raw.githubusercontent.com/MobileReality/mdma), that the repo is public (implying no auth), the allowed path whitelist, the 'latest version' semantics, and that content comes back as text. It omits failure behavior for a disallowed or missing path and any size/rate considerations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and source, then constraints, then the default. No filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return is raw text content. Path restrictions and branch default are covered. Remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior on invalid paths, which is minor for a read-only fetch 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'ref' and 'path' including the 'main' default. The description restates the default branch and adds the allowed-path constraint, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Fetches the latest version of an MDMA documentation file') plus the source location and return format. It implicitly separates itself from get-spec/get-prompt by scoping to documentation files, but never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

Gives real selection context: allowed paths are 'any entry from list-docs, plus any *.md file under docs/ or blueprints/', which routes the agent to list-docs for discovery. Missing an explicit 'use get-spec instead when you need a spec' exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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