get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (extracts comments) and the supported syntax, but does not explain what happens if no doc comment exists, whether it returns the raw comment, or any error behavior. This leaves moderate ambiguity for a simple read-only 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the primary action. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 is simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not detail the return format or behavior in edge cases (e.g., missing comments, invalid symbol). Given the lack of output schema, this gap in completeness makes the description minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptive examples for both parameters. The description adds the list of symbol types (function, type, class, variable), but this overlaps with the schema's example values, providing minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 extracts JSDoc/TSDoc comments for a symbol, listing the symbol types (function, type, class, variable) and noting support for Class.method syntax. This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_type_definition or get_function_body.

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 the tool is used when documentation comments are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no references to other tools or context-based guidance, so usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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