User Documentation

Do you not see the dedicated "Return type" line?

I do. It's not good to look at with all the mess it has http://icecream.me/8633fd13e24b9d203af3dfceb057c4ee.

I don't see a mess.

Seriously, this is one of the most pretentious complaints I've seen in a long time.

It's not pretentious. Seriously, don't say it like that otherwise you'll cause unprofessional commotions. CI3's documentation is the only documentation I know that doesn't have this. Even Ionniezell/kilishan agrees with its benefits http://icecream.me/083b9d8273b54a14038f07796adf3ad7.

So, you're entitled to saying whatever you want, but if I reply back in the same manner, it's unprofessional?

You've proposed something that would require non-insignificant effort, without mentioning that it already exists in a different form, but when that's pointed out all you have to say is "not good to look at". Giving zero supporting points in favor of what you want ("others do it" is a well-known fallacy, not a meaningful argument) and zero evidence to support your claim that what we have is not good.
How is that not pretentious? You're literally providing nothing but your own preference.

Here's a real, factually-relevant argument:

Including the return type in the signature itself, would imply that the return type in question is actually declared as such in the framework code, like it is indeed the case with CI4-dev documentation - this condition can obviously never be true in CI3.