get_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions caching behavior and return format, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid paths.

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 and well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args/Returns. The examples are useful and do not feel excessive. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema (implied), the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameters with examples, caching behavior, and return format. It is largely complete given the tool's complexity, though missing error state details.

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 adds value by providing concrete path examples and explaining the source parameter's allowed values ('geap' or 'vertex-ai'). However, it doesn't clarify the exact format required for paths beyond examples.

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 'Get full content of a specific documentation page', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_models, list_sections, and search_docs by focusing on a single page's full content.

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 provides context by listing example paths for different sources and explaining the source parameter. It implicitly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions or direct comparisons.

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