renforge_get_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool reads a documentation page as plain text, which is a non-mutating read operation, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid topics, pagination, or other behavioral details. It adds some context but not enough for a high score.

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 redundant information. The example is integrated efficiently, making the description both concise and 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but noted), the description is largely complete. It explains the input, the output format, and the resource. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. The only missing context is how to discover valid topics, but sibling tools (list_docs) cover that.

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 schema has only one string parameter 'topic' with 0% coverage in the schema description. The description compensates by providing a concrete example ('topic=cli'), which clarifies that the parameter is a documentation topic name. While it doesn't enumerate all possible topics, it gives clear context beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('Ren'Py documentation page') and output format ('as plain text'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like renforge_search_docs (search) and renforge_list_docs (list) by emphasizing reading a specific page.

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 you know a specific topic (via the example 'topic=cli') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_docs or list_docs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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