read_doc

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no-args lists one-line summaries, path fetch returns verbatim full doc, and platform only filters listings. It also explains determinism and the filesystem-as-API rationale, giving the agent useful mental model beyond annotations.

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 core behavior and routing rule are front-loaded, followed by scannable bullet examples, and then a short rationale. Every sentence earns its place; the research reference is brief and helps explain why direct doc reading is preferable to repeated searching.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers all return modes: listing all chunks with summaries, listing by platform, and fetching one full doc verbatim. Required parameters, optional parameters, and parameter combinations are all addressed. No critical gap remains for an agent to choose and call this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: concrete path examples, 'omit to list all available paths', platform filter scoped to listing mode, and expected return shape per parameter combination. These details are not in the schema and materially improve correct invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a specific SDK docs chunk by exact path' and also describes the no-args listing mode. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from search_docs, so an agent can select it correctly based on the tool's purpose alone.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this instead of search_docs when you already know the chunk ID.' It also provides common usage patterns and a recommendation to call read_doc({}) once at session start to map the SDK surface. This goes beyond vague context into actionable when-to-use instructions.

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