get-endpoint-docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes the return content, but does not explicitly state that it is side-effect free, or mention error behavior, authentication, or rate limits. It is adequately transparent for a read-only tool, though not exhaustive.

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 a single concise sentence with a concrete example, front-loading the purpose and listing deliverables. No filler or redundant wording exists; every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description clearly explains the return contents (parameters, schemas, examples) and provides a usage example. It does not address error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a documentation retrieval tool, making it adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the example, which essentially repeats the schema's example for 'path'. Since the schema covers parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Get complete documentation for a specific API endpoint' and enumerates the contents (parameters, request/response schemas, examples). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like search-endpoints or get-schema, which target different actions or scopes.

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 usage when a specific endpoint's documentation is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like search-endpoints or get-schema, nor does it state when not to use it. The provided example reinforces the expected inputs but offers no exclusion criteria.

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