get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this returns a complete page and that paths must match source labels exactly as printed by search tools, but says nothing about read-only nature, response shape, or pagination. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences: the scope/forms are front-loaded and the workflow hint follows. No filler.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (a full page), the accepted path forms, and how to obtain a valid path. Minor gap is not naming get_api_reference as the alternative for class settings, which lives only in the schema.

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 already 100% and includes examples and the skill-file form, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the path must be the source label exactly as search_docs / search_all print it, clarifying an otherwise implicit matching rule.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a full documentation page') and enumerates the two accepted path forms (extended doc vs. 'skill/<name>'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_api_reference, which is only distinguished inside the parameter schema, not the description.

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?

Gives clear workflow guidance: 'Use search_all first to find the right path,' which establishes this as a follow-up retrieval tool. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g., when to prefer get_api_reference instead), but the sequencing advice is concrete.

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