Get Studio Topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states that the tool returns 'comprehensive documentation with examples, schema details, and best practices', which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool accesses the internet (e.g., for live Help pages), any potential latency or network dependencies, or what happens if the topic is invalid. The version parameter is described as 'for live Help pages', which hints at an external lookup, but it could be more explicit about the live fetch behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a note about how version affects the output, but given the schema covers that, this is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate. It mentions return content (examples, schema details, best practices) but does not specify the return format (e.g., Markdown, JSON), error handling, or whether the content is static or fetched from live help pages. Given the tool's moderate complexity (version parameter for live pages), more detail about the live fetching and failure modes would improve completeness.

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 100%, providing detailed descriptions for both parameters, including defaults and allowed versions. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema already fully defines the parameters. The description's mention of 'comprehensive documentation' reinforces the output purpose, but it does not explain how version affects the response beyond 'live Help pages'.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Dashboard Studio documentation', and the purpose 'for a specific topic'. It is distinct from siblings like list_dashboard_studio_topics because it retrieves content for one topic rather than listing topics, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 its use case: when an agent needs specific topic documentation. It references list_dashboard_studio_topics() for available topics, which provides a clear prerequisite. However, it does not state when NOT to use it, such as when the agent needs a full documentation reference or a different product's docs, which would be handled by siblings like get_splunk_documentation.

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