get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Read' makes the operation non-destructive, and 'full text' clarifies the return content. It does not cover error behavior or access restrictions, but for a simple get-by-id tool the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and parameter without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 key invocation detail (doc_id) and the return substance ('full text'). It is missing guidance on where doc_id comes from and behavior when the document is not found, so the agent must infer some context from siblings or the environment.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the description ties it explicitly to the document being fetched, so doc_id's role is unambiguous. However, it adds little beyond the schema's property name and does not specify the expected format or source of valid doc_id values.

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 ('KB document'), and explicitly identifies the access mechanism ('by doc_id'). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need the full text of a specific knowledge-base document and have its doc_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a search sibling or how a valid doc_id should be obtained.

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