Document infos

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's value lies in specifying the return format (a JSON array of {section, id, value} objects) and the 'all' qualifier suggesting no filtering. This adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose error handling or edge cases.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that communicates the action, resource, and output format without wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Return'.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the return value structure, and the schema handles parameter details. No additional context seems necessary for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single optional parameter 'doc', including its description and default behavior. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns all file infos for a document, specifying the exact output format as a JSON array of {section, id, value} objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like banana_info_value and banana_info_table which likely return specific individual info items.

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: if you need all file infos for a document, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as banana_info_value or banana_info_table, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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