get_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the first block is 'gotchas' and that 'tokens' is the response budget, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or the relationship to sibling tools. Partial but not rich disclosure.

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?

Compact, front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples for topic are efficient. No filler sentences; the only minor slack is the gotchas mention, which overlaps a sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the required library_id is undocumented and there is no hint that it likely must come from resolve_library, leaving a real gap for a multi-param lookup 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'topic' (free-form, Russian OK, with examples) and 'tokens' (response budget), adding real value, but 'library_id' — one of two required parameters — is left entirely undefined.

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+resource: returns documentation fragments for a given topic, with a Russian example. It is clear what the tool does, though the note that gotchas appear as the first block blurs the line with the sibling get_gotchas rather than distinguishing them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_gotchas or resolve_library, and no prerequisites stated. The only usage hint is that topic can be free-form and in Russian, which is input guidance rather than routing guidance.

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