get_api_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that the docs are 'auto-generated' and 'living', implying they reflect current state, but does not disclose any additional behaviors like caching, response size, or authorization nuances. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, no fluff. First sentence states the primary purpose, second enumerates contents. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description sufficiently informs about what is returned. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., project must be built or accessible) or possible limitations. For a read-only documentation tool, it is nearly complete.

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?

The only parameter 'projectPath' has schema description 'Absolute path to the project root directory'. The tool description does not add any further meaning or constraints beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is justified—the schema already documents it adequately.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the auto-generated living API documentation' and enumerates specific contents (route map, request/response types, auth requirements, frontend consumers). It is a specific verb+resource, and distinct from siblings like scan_routes which likely perform different route-related actions.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., scan_routes) or prerequisites. The description implies using it to obtain documentation, but lacks context for selecting this over other tools.

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