get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'Does NOT require a Houdini connection' is genuinely useful context since nearly every sibling tool needs a live session. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid/nonexistent path or any rate/size limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information: what it returns, the path format, its origin, and the connection independence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only minor gap is behavior on an invalid path, which the description omits.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the value is a 'relative path' (not absolute) and that it comes from search_docs. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full content of a Houdini documentation page') and pins down the input ('by its relative path'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_docs that produces those paths.

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 parenthetical '(as returned by search_docs)' establishes the intended workflow and names the upstream sibling, which is strong implied usage guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or spelling out prerequisites beyond the connection note.

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