get_doc_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (a dictionary with title, sections, and evidence_sources) which is helpful, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is functionally clear but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, using a standard docstring format with a one-line purpose, an Args block with an example, and a Returns block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is retrieved and the shape of the return value. It does not explain when to use it relative to siblings, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and clarity of the purpose.

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 description explicitly explains the only parameter, doc_id, as a 'Document file path' and gives a concrete example ('Documentation/net/core.rst'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has no property description for doc_id.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly states the resource: 'full content and section headings for a kernel document.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_docs and lookup_symbol, which are search-oriented rather than retrieval of a full document.

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 the tool is used when one already has a doc_id (a file path) and wants the full content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides context but no comparative guidance.

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