get_tool_docs

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world semantics, so the safety bar is low. The description adds the valid topic domains and the error-recovery trigger, but says nothing about how large or structured the returned docs are (though an output schema exists, lowering the burden).

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, front-loaded with the deliverable, with the long topic list pushed into the subordinate clause where it belongs. Every element earns its place, though the parenthetical list makes the first sentence dense.

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 one-parameter read-only docs tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and a concrete trigger. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, apart from the minor ambiguity with get_capability_help.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'topic' parameter has no description, so the description must carry the load — and it does, listing all valid topic values and the 'index' default. Only the string format/acceptance rules (e.g., exact casing) are left unstated.

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+resource (return usage docs and examples) and enumerates the exact topic domains, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_capability_help, which appears to serve a closely related documentation/help purpose.

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?

"Call this after a tool error" gives one clear trigger, which is better than nothing. However, the most natural use of usage docs — reading them before invoking an unfamiliar tool — is never stated, and no alternative (e.g., get_capability_help) is named or excluded.

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