ashby_get_api_docs

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Return a reference,' which is a read-only action. It goes beyond the annotation by detailing what the reference contains (base URL, auth, response envelope, pagination, endpoint index, gotchas), making the tool's behavior concrete. No contradiction exists.

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 with no fluff. The first front-loads the core purpose and deliverables; the second gives a practical usage directive and a link. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned content and when to invoke it. The pointer to official docs and the advisory to call before ashby_call_api leave no gaps for an agent deciding how to proceed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to document, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return a reference'), names the resource ('Ashby API'), and lists the exact contents (base URL, auth, response envelope, pagination, endpoint index with parameter hints and gotchas). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many operation-focused siblings by identifying it as the documentation/reference tool and even names the closely related sibling ashby_call_api.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this before ashby_call_api when you're unsure which endpoint or param names to use.' This gives a clear precondition and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about routing. It also provides the official reference URL as a fallback.

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