get-doc

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (full page text plus all code examples). However, it says nothing about failure modes (unknown id/path), rate limits, or auth requirements, so key behavioral context is missing for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, how to look it up, and when to call it. Front-loaded with the purpose and no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe returns – and it does (complete page text plus code examples). Sibling and sequencing relationships are covered. The only real gap is error/edge behavior when a lookup key does not resolve.

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%, so the schema already documents id, path, and title, including the warning that titles are non-unique. The description's lookup guidance (id/path/title, prefer id or path) largely restates that, adding little beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a full official FeathersJS doc page") plus the scope of what it returns ("complete page text plus all code examples"). The role is clearly differentiated from siblings like search-doc and get-menu, which are named as upstream steps rather than substitutes.

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 enumerates the triggering conditions: after get-menu (paths/ids), after search-doc, or when the user supplied an exact id/path/title. It also gives a selection rule among the tool's own inputs ("Prefer id or path over title"), leaving little to inference.

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