get_docs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: anchor retrieval is 'much cheaper', and pagination is available via start_index. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two essential usage tips. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to cover return values. It adequately explains the key parameters and usage nuances (anchor, pagination). Slight omission: no mention of version default behavior, but that is in 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 100%, so the description's value-add is limited. However, it explains the purpose of 'anchor' (section-only retrieval) and 'start_index' (pagination), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('documentation page or specific section'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_docs and compare_versions. It also mentions key features: anchor for section-only retrieval and pagination.

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 provides guidance on using anchor for cheaper section-only retrieval and mentions pagination via start_index. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like search_docs.

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