Get Documentation

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior; the description adds significant context: prioritization order (llms.txt, Jina Reader, GitHub README), proprietary data handling restrictions, and usage count limit. No contradictions with 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?

Well-structured with a clear logical flow: purpose, prerequisite call, prioritization strategy, data notice, usage limit. Each sentence adds value, though the proprietary notice could be slightly condensed. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers usage context, prerequisites, limitations, and data policies. It lacks explicit return format, but that is acceptable as output schema is absent and the tool returns documentation content naturally.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful examples and usage details beyond the schema: e.g., libraryId includes example formats, topic has specific query examples, version shows version strings, tokens clarifies default and max, projectPath explains auto-detection logic.

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 fetches documentation for any library or framework, with specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'documentation'. It also links to a prerequisite (gt_resolve_library), distinguishing it from sibling tools that might return examples or search results.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Call gt_resolve_library first to get the libraryId') and usage limits ('Do not call this tool more than 3 times per question'). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gt_examples, but the context implies that for examples one would use a different tool.

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