get_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a documentation-fetch tool this is low-risk, but the description says nothing about lookup behavior, whether unknown module names error or return empty, or any fallback behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and each remaining sentence maps to one parameter. No wasted text.

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?

With only 2 parameters, an output schema present, and the description covering both the required and optional argument's formats, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly. Only the routing vs. search_docs remains thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains module_name accepts a prefixed or bare form ('d3-scale' or 'scale') and gives a concrete page example ('linear'). It omits whether page is optional only with module_name or how the two interact on misses, so it is not a 5.

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 ('Get D3.js API documentation'), which clearly sets it apart from find_example/get_example siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_docs, the closest sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives implicit routing guidance by explaining that module_name yields the overview and adding page yields a sub-page, which implies when to supply each. However, it never says when to use this tool versus search_docs or find_module (e.g. when the module name is unknown), leaving the main routing decision unstated.

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