get_man_page

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only mechanism ('Read-only via man -P cat'), validation ('command is required and validated'), error behavior ('Fatal if man is missing or there is no manual entry'), and option effects ('max_lines ... with a truncated flag, case-insensitive search with context_lines, and offset').

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 that front-load the core purpose, follow with option summary, and end with usage guidance. No filler; each sentence adds 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?

For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and option effects. The output schema exists, so return values are documented there. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description partially repeats schema details (e.g., max_lines range, case-insensitive search) but does not significantly add new meaning beyond grouping options. It does not explain 'clean_special_chars' beyond the schema, though the schema covers it.

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 states 'Fetches the authoritative man page for a command as plain text' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies usage 'when the user asks about flags, syntax, or edge cases.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling system-info getters.

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 ends with 'Use when the user asks about flags, syntax, or edge cases,' providing explicit context. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the sibling tools are all system information retrievers, making the intended domain clear.

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