outline_get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description fails to specify error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), whether this operation is idempotent, or any authentication/authorization requirements.

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 optimally concise at 7 words. It front-loads the verb ('Get'), avoids redundancy with the schema, and contains no filler or tangential information. Every word serves to clarify the tool's scope.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, no nested objects, 100% schema coverage), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of error cases (404 behavior) and given the absence of an output schema, could benefit from a brief note about the return structure to aid agent decision-making among the multiple document retrieval options.

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 has 100% description coverage ('The ID of the document to retrieve'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—merely appending 'by ID'—without clarifying ID format (UUID, slug, etc.) or providing usage examples.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), resource ('document from Outline'), and lookup method ('by ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like outline_search_documents or outline_list_documents, which also retrieve documents but through different mechanisms.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not indicate that this tool requires an exact ID (as opposed to searching), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the document ID beforehand or what to do if the ID is unknown.

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