pin.get_doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds context that it reads 'committed' pages and returns a 'pinned evidence slice with full SHA,' which is useful beyond the 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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no wasted words. The alternative guidance is included efficiently.

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 simple, read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does, the 'committed' aspect, the pinned evidence slice with SHA, and provides a key alternative. It could mention return format or error cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'repository' or 'sourcePath' mean or how they should be formatted. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any additional semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or expected format.

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 reads one committed documentation page and produces a pinned evidence slice with full SHA. It distinguishes itself from pin.prove by noting that prove is preferred for claims, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pin.read.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Prefer pin.prove for claims,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it lacks detailed guidance on when to use this tool over pin.read or other siblings, only implying its use for documentation pages.

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