docs_get

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns documentation content' but does not mention whether the operation is purely read-only, if any authentication is needed, or how errors (e.g., invalid topic) are handled. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a bulleted list of topics. It front-loads the main action and presents the parameter options clearly without any superfluous text.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what inputs are valid. However, it omits details like error handling, response format, or whether the documentation content is raw text or structured, which could be helpful but are not critical.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'topic' parameter, but the description compensates by listing three specific valid topics with brief explanations. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be improved by including format constraints or error handling notes.

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 'Get documentation on a specific topic' and enumerates the available topics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docs_list (which lists topics) and physics_get_guide (which is physics-specific).

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 implies the tool should be used when a user needs documentation on a known topic, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like physics_get_guide or docs_list. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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