get_cli_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns documentation and tailors content, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 very concise with three short sentences, each earning its place. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and key features.

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 the simple tool (1 optional parameter, output schema exists, 100% schema coverage), the description is nearly complete. It mentions the source (CLI tool), content types, and account tailoring. Minor omission: no explanation of 'tailored' or prerequisites, but these are likely implied.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'section' parameter described. The description adds context about the CLI and tailoring but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter 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 it returns CLI documentation, specifying 'usage guides, command reference, and examples' for the 'parts' CLI. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'parts_cli' which likely runs the CLI itself, and other tools are unrelated to documentation retrieval.

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 to obtain CLI documentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other documentation tools). It mentions automatic tailoring to the account, which hints at personalization but no exclusion criteria.

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