get_doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world hint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the whole page text is returned (as opposed to snippets or summaries), but says nothing about behavior on invalid keys, rate limits, or pagination. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the main burden.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the key-discovery hint immediately after. The example keys are the only elaboration and they earn their space by illustrating the parameter format.

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 read tool with an output schema already present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, key format and how to obtain valid keys; the only minor gap is explicit routing versus sibling search/list tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by showing concrete key shapes: 'laser-sdk/quickstart', 'laser-sdk/memory', 'python/laser_sdk/Laser'. This communicates the path-like namespace convention and points to list_docs as the authoritative key source, which is meaningfully more than the bare string schema offers.

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: 'Retrieve the full text of one LaserData documentation page.' The scope word 'one' contrasts implicitly with the list/search siblings, though the description never explicitly names what it is not (e.g., not a multi-page search like search_docs). Clear, but sibling differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 actionable context by directing the agent to list_docs to discover valid keys before calling, which is a concrete prerequisite step. It stops short of explicit when/when-not selection rules against alternatives such as search_docs or extract_code_snippets, so no exclusions are given.

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