get_api_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the signature comes from the library's actual source and is paired with a documentation URL, which tells the agent how trustworthy the output is. It is silent on failure modes (unknown symbol), and the library-version interaction is only lightly covered.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by input-format detail and a compact Args block. Slightly redundant in re-listing the symbol parameter, but overall tight and well ordered.

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 single-symbol lookup with an output schema present, the description supplies what the agent needs: name formats, library scoping, version override, and the provenance of the returned signature. Only error behavior is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: symbol is described as a class/function/method/module name, library is enumerated as "merlin" (default) or "perceval", and version is explained as a docs version override used for the documentation link. That covers all three parameters with meaning beyond their bare titles.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: retrieving the exact signature and docstring of one API symbol, with the key qualifier that the signature is parsed from real source and paired with a doc URL. This implicitly separates it from search_api (searching) and get_source (reading a file), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains accepted input forms but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_api, get_source, or get_doc_page. No prerequisites or exclusions are offered, leaving tool selection to inference from the name alone.

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