Get subsystem doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, error responses (e.g., if subsystem doesn't exist), or any dependencies. Behavior beyond the bare return is opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part adds value: the verb, resource, optional modifier. It is as concise as possible while being informative.

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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return content but omits details like output format (e.g., string, JSON), error handling behavior, and the precise effect of 'projectPath'. It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for 'includeSource' (matching the optional boolean) and clarifies 'name' as identifying a subsystem. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or how 'projectPath' relates to tool behavior beyond the schema.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('subsystem's knowledge-base doc'), and the content (hardware, config names, functions, tuning, quirks) with an optional inclusion of Java source. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_doc' (generic) and 'list_subsystems' (listing only).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_doc' vs 'get_subsystem'). The description does not indicate prerequisites, exclusions, or when to include source. The agent gets no comparison with sibling tools.

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