get_related_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that 'Relatedness comes from explicit links, backlinks, shared section, and shared vocabulary', which explains the tool's internal logic, but it never explicitly states this is read-only or discloses ordering/rate-limit behavior. The verb 'Return' implies no side effects, but it isn't confirmed.

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 sentences with no wasted words: purpose first, then the relatedness algorithm, then a usage tip. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The description supplies purpose, algorithm, and typical usage context; an output schema exists so return details are covered. The only notable gap is that max_results is undocumented in the description, which prevents fully anticipating the response shape or pagination behavior.

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. It clarifies that key means 'doc key', but max_results is never mentioned or explained beyond the parameter name and default. An agent cannot learn from the description how the max_results parameter affects the call.

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?

Opens with 'Return documentation pages related to one doc key' – a specific verb, object, and scope. This differentiates it from get_doc (single page), search_docs (query over docs), and list_docs (catalog), which are all siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this after get_doc when one page may not contain all context needed for a complete answer', giving a specific predecessor and a condition. It doesn't name other alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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