get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the key is invalid. This is a low-information description for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words: the first names the operation, and the second gives immediate pointer to list_docs. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though it could include a note about the return format without bloating the description.

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-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, this is adequate. The description tells you exactly how to get a valid key and what the tool returns (full text). However, it lacks any mention of failure modes or what happens when the key is missing, and the output schema is not described in the description itself.

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 schema provides only the key name and type with 0% comprehensive coverage. The description compensates by giving concrete examples of valid key values ('server/docker', 'sdk/python/intro') and points to list_docs for discovering keys, adding meaningful usage context beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('the full text of one Iggy documentation page'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_docs or extract_code_snippets. It also provides concrete example keys, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_docs to discover valid keys, providing a clear prerequisite and usage sequence. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like search_docs, but it is strongly implied that this tool is for retrieving a single document while list_docs is for discovery.

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