open-context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached, rate limits, or the format/structure of the returned documentation. 'Get' implies retrieval but lacks specificity about side effects or authentication requirements.

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 single sentence is appropriately brief but verges on underspecification given the tool's complexity and numerous siblings. It lacks the necessary contextual sentences to justify its placement in the tool ecosystem.

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?

Despite having three optional parameters and numerous specialized siblings, the description offers no explanation of the lookup hierarchy, return value structure, or integration with 'search_docs' and 'list_docs'. Missing critical context for a tool serving as a generic documentation gateway.

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%, documenting all three parameters (id, language, topic) adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for well-documented schemas but not compensating for the zero required parameters ambiguity.

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 clear verb (Get) and resource (documentation), but fails to differentiate from 15+ sibling tools like 'get_go_info' or 'get_python_info'. The description doesn't clarify whether this is a fallback generic tool or serves a distinct purpose from the specific technology info tools.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific 'get_*_info' siblings. While the schema hints that 'id' comes from search results, the description doesn't explain the prerequisite workflow (search_docs → get_docs) or when to use 'id' versus 'topic' parameters.

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