get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Read' and adds the path base constraint, but doesn't disclose error behavior, file type handling, or other edge cases. Minimal but adequate for such a simple tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'where' sufficiently. It could mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 only defines 'path' as a string. The description adds crucial semantics by stating the path is relative to CourseGlobalWorkflow/ and provides examples. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('workflow document'), backed by concrete examples (GRADING.md, Access/Canvas.md). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or get_course that operate on different resources.

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 provides clear contextual usage: this is for reading workflow documents, with the path relative to CourseGlobalWorkflow/. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the examples and path constraint make the intended scope obvious.

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