op_get_document

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing what the fetch returns: title, markdown description, project, dates, and attachment details including file name, size, type, status, and download URL. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the returned content without wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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-by-id tool with one fully documented parameter, the description adequately covers return values by enumerating the main fields. No output schema exists, but the description supplies enough expectation-setting for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'Document id.' The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the fetch targets one document by id, so 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one document'), and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes from op_list_documents, which lists documents, and from mutation siblings like op_update_document.

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 clearly implies use when a single document's full detail is needed, and the sibling list tool is implicitly the alternative for browsing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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