get_doc_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an index for browsing, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more specific to enhance clarity without adding bulk, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, response structure, or error cases. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in completeness for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'doc_slug' documented as 'The slug of the documentation (e.g., 'javascript', 'python~3.12').' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid slugs or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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: 'Get the complete index of entries for a specific documentation set.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('complete index of entries'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_doc_content' (which retrieves content) and 'list_docs' (which lists documentation sets). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_all_docs' or 'search_doc' in terms of scope or filtering, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage with 'Useful for browsing available topics,' suggesting this tool is for exploration rather than search or content retrieval. It hints at when to use it (browsing) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_doc' for targeted queries. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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