erpnext_doc_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavior not present in the annotations: large documents are returned through result artifacts. This is valuable contextual information for the agent.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the artifact caveat is included efficiently. Every word contributes meaning.

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-only tool with output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, the complete absence of parameter explanation at 0% schema description coverage is a genuine gap, and the relationship to erpnext_result_read is only implied. It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention doctype or name at all. It provides no guidance on what values to supply, how the two parameters relate, or any constraints. The agent is left with only the parameter names themselves.

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 states a specific verb with a resource: 'Read a complete document.' This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete/submit/cancel siblings and from doc_list, which would not return a single complete document. The artifact caveat adds further specificity.

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 phrase 'Read a complete document' implies the usage context for fetching a single full document, and the artifact note hints at a follow-up for large results. However, there is no explicit routing to alternatives like erpnext_result_read for consuming artifacts, nor any mention of when doc_list would be more appropriate. Guidance is only implied, not stated.

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