get_documentation_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns content or an error message, which covers basic success/failure behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other operational constraints. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses advanced contextual information.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, usage example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates essential information in a compact format.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and basic behavior, but could improve by addressing error handling details or constraints like file size limits.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'file_path' parameter with a clear example ('classes/class_camera2d.md') and specifies it's relative to the docs directory, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail allowed file types or path validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get the content') and resource ('a specific documentation file'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_documentation_tree' which presumably retrieves a directory structure rather than file content. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve file content) and includes a usage example, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative for different needs. The example helps clarify the intended use case.

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