Get Doc Snippet

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint by explicitly calling out that includeUsages is useful before deletion, signaling that this read operation can inform a destructive workflow. It also states a requirement ('Requires project context'), which helps set expectations about invocation prerequisites. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 informative sentences, front-loaded with the core result ('full Markdown content and rowVersion') and the key usage caveat. The deletion advice is actionable and compact. It could slightly improve structure by separating the context requirement, but it is still concise.

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 read tool with 3 required IDs and one optional flag, the description covers the critical behavioral clue (includeUsages before deletion) and the project-context requirement. There is no output schema, but the description does state that the response includes full Markdown content and rowVersion, so the agent knows the primary return shape. It doesn't explain how to get the required IDs, but that is a minor gap for this kind of docs snippet tool.

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 input schema already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that includeUsages also lists embedding pages and advises doing that before deletion, which goes beyond the schema's 'Also list the pages using this snippet.' It does not describe the snippetId/versionId/documentationId relationship, but the schema already names them clearly.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: fetching one snippet with its full Markdown content and rowVersion. It also mentions an optional flag, includeUsages, to list embedding pages. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from list_doc_snippets in the same sentence, but the singular 'one snippet' and the focus on full Markdown content and rowVersion clarify its core purpose.

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 phrase 'set includeUsages to also list the pages embedding it — do that before deleting one' gives a specific pre-deletion usage hint, and 'Need project context' implies when it can be called. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool over list_doc_snippets or get_doc_page, nor does it state when not to use it.

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