fetch_suprsend_documentation

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

The description claims this is a fetch (read-only) operation returning markdown, but the annotation destructiveHint=true contradicts this. The annotations also include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but destructiveHint=true implies a mutation could occur, which is inconsistent with the described behavior. This contradiction undermines trust.

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 concise and well-structured in three separate sections: when to use, when not to use, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately 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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains purpose, prerequisites, and return format explicitly. The contradiction in annotations does not affect the description's own completeness.

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 covers the single parameter 'uri' with 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds context about getting the URI from search results, but that is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics. The minimal extra value keeps the score at baseline 3.

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 it fetches the full content of a SuprSend documentation page when a snippet is insufficient. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'documentation page' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_suprsend_documentation' by indicating it provides full content rather than snippets.

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 explicitly states when to use ('after search_suprsend_documentation, when the snippet excerpt doesn't fully answer') and when not to use ('to discover documentation — search first; don't construct uris yourself'). It also references the alternative tool (search_suprsend_documentation) by name.

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