Get Docs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully describe the behavioral distinction between whole-document and single-section retrieval, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation or size limits, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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, front-loaded with the resource and source, then filtering options, then the narrowing path. No filler or redundancy.

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 six-parameter, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main retrieval shapes well. The one meaningful gap is the default behavior when no parameters are passed (full listing? bounded result set?), which an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already documents its own format (glob example, owner/repo, heading anchor, chunk id format). The description largely restates that the doc_id+section/chunk_id combination narrows results rather than adding new semantics, so it earns baseline credit only.

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+resource+source: "Retrieve synced documentation from connected GitHub repositories," and names the three filtering axes plus the targeted-retrieval mode. It is clearly distinct from most siblings (get_checks, get_specs, get_graph_stats), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_context or get_document_links.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filter options and by the instruction to pass doc_id with section or chunk_id for a single section. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of which sibling to prefer for specs, links, or context retrieval, and no statement of prerequisites.

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