get_api_docs

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what content is returned (endpoints, parameters, validation rules, error codes, data structures) and the size (6933 lines), which is meaningful context. However, it doesn't state the return format (single string blob? markdown?), whether it's paginated/truncated, or that it is read-only.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the parenthetical size note earns its place by hinting at payload volume.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, but omits format and potential token/size handling implications of a 6933-line return, which an agent consuming this content would need to know.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed since the full blueprint is always returned.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('Eventbrite API Blueprint documentation'), and quantifies the scope (6933 lines). It's clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are concrete CRUD operations on Eventbrite entities, not documentation retrieval.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. For a documentation-retrieval tool against a large API surface, an agent would benefit from knowing this is the reference source to consult before calling other tools, but the description offers no routing.

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