get_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the read-like operation but fails to mention if it is read-only, any side effects, required permissions, or response format. The agent is left to assume safe behavior without confirmation.

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, well-formed sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simple structure (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., document content, metadata) which would be helpful for an agent. The schema covers parameters well, but the description could enhance completeness by indicating output.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (topic as folder name, document without .md extension). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 action (Get) and the resource (specific document from a topic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_topic (which gets a topic) and search (which returns results), making it easy for the agent to select this tool for retrieving a single 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_topic or search, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no guidance on tool selection criteria.

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