read_reference_doc_published

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns the published version (not draft), and implies it is a read operation with no destructive effects. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or other behavioral details beyond the basic read nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and a helpful tip about diffing. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, how it differs from the sibling read_reference_doc, and suggests a practical use case (diffing). No obvious gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' is described in schema as 'The reference_doc's id.' The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it reads the published version of a reference_doc, distinguishing it from the draft version read by read_reference_doc. The verb 'read' and resource 'published version of a reference_doc' are specific. It differentiates from the sibling tool read_reference_doc by contrasting draft vs published.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to get the live published version, and suggests diffing with draft to see pending changes. Provides guidance on context (comparing with read_reference_doc), but does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools list beyond the implicit contrast.

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