get_doc

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return structure (title, URL, sections with markdown content) and the behavioral change with 'extract_code'. It omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only retrieval 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 concise and well-organized with clear sections (summary, args, returns, example). Every sentence contributes meaning without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, presence of an output schema, and clear description of return values, the definition is complete. It covers what the tool does, its parameters, and typical usage.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema by providing concrete examples for 'slug' and explaining the purpose of 'extract_code' ('return only fenced code blocks'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('full documentation page by its slug'), making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_components' and 'search_docs' by focusing on single-page retrieval.

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 provides practical usage examples and explains the effect of the optional 'extract_code' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer exclusion criteria.

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