get-documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about search flexibility (title, ID, partial matches) and batch processing capabilities (single or array inputs). However, it doesn't cover important aspects like response format, error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., rate limits), leaving gaps for a 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then details search methods, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the search methods section could be slightly more concise. No wasted text, but minor room for tightening.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a retrieval tool. It covers purpose, search methods, and usage workflow adequately. However, it lacks details on return values (format, structure), error cases, or limitations, which are important for a tool with flexible input options and no structured output documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'section' parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reiterating support for 'single string or array of strings' and mentioning search methods (title, ID, partial matches), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves full documentation content for Macroforge sections.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('documentation content'), and scope ('Macroforge sections'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-sections' or 'get-macro-info' beyond mentioning 'list-sections' in usage context.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'After calling list-sections, analyze the use_cases and fetch ALL relevant sections at once.' It suggests a workflow with 'list-sections' as a precursor and recommends batching fetches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'get-macro-info'.

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