fetch_godocs_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool extracts and formats content ('Extracts package overview...', 'Formats content in readable text format'), limits output size ('Limits output to avoid overwhelming context'), and mentions truncation behavior in the Returns section. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (USE THIS WHEN, BEST FOR, NOT SUITABLE FOR, Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence adds value: no repetition, no fluff. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or authentication details, but given the context, it provides sufficient guidance for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does: it explains both parameters with examples ('package: Go package path (e.g., "github.com/gin-gonic/gin")') and default values ('max_bytes: Maximum content size, default 20KB (increase for large packages)'), adding meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch actual Go package documentation from godocs.io' with specific resources (package overview, function signatures, type definitions, API reference). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_github_readme' or 'godocs_metadata' by focusing on complete documentation extraction rather than metadata or source code.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS WHEN: You need package overview...', 'BEST FOR: Getting complete documentation for Go packages', and 'NOT SUITABLE FOR: Source code (use GitHub provider for that)'. It also compares to alternatives ('Better than using curl or WebFetch because...'), giving clear context for when to choose this tool over others.

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