Get HitKeep API Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that it returns markdown, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, caching, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the main behaviors, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one concise sentence that clearly states the action and input. It is front-loaded and has zero waste. Perfectly concise.

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 only one parameter and full schema coverage, plus annotations indicating read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. The output schema exists, so return format is not needed. The only missing piece is clarification on what 'path or operation slug' means in practice, but the schema description already covers that. This is complete enough for a simple 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?

The schema has 100% coverage: the parameter description explains it takes an API docs path, operation slug, or official docs URL. The description adds 'by path or operation slug' which is redundant with the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 it fetches an official HitKeep REST API reference page as markdown, which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions 'by path or operation slug' but does not differentiate from siblings like 'hitkeep_get_doc' or 'hitkeep_search_docs' which might also retrieve documentation. Still, the purpose is clear and distinct enough.

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 implies when to use it (to get API reference documentation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given siblings like 'hitkeep_search_docs' and 'hitkeep_get_doc', there is no guidance on choosing between them. This is a minor gap.

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