get_tool_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating lookup, and the error-recovery framing is useful context, but the description never explicitly confirms the call is side-effect free, nor does it state behavior for an unrecognized topic.

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 purpose, followed by the actionable trigger. The parenthetical topic list is long but earns its place by supplying the missing enum values.

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 single-optional-parameter lookup tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies purpose, valid inputs, and call conditions. The only residual gap is unknown-topic behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 or enum, so the description must compensate — and it does, enumerating all nine valid topic groups plus 'index' as the default. That is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 ('Return usage docs and examples for a tool group') and enumerates the exact topic domains, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. No sibling tool in the list produces documentation, so the function is unambiguously differentiated.

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 an explicit trigger condition and makes the tool's role as an error-recovery aid clear. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g. during normal operation) or what to do if the topic is unknown.

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