read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the newest document wins on name collisions and a warning lists the other matches. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence addresses an important edge case without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and the name-collision edge case, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not describe the return format or other side effects, but for a simple read operation with good annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'document' can be a file name or a UUID, but it does not explain 'project_id' at all. The description partially compensates for the missing schema documentation but leaves a key parameter undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one document'), clearly stating that it retrieves a single document by file name or UUID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists) and write_document (which writes).

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 usage context by explaining how to identify a document (by name or uuid) and the ambiguity resolution rule, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or exclusions. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is only implied.

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