get_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: 'Return' signals a read operation, 'stored' indicates pre-existing content, and the 'only source' rule gives important behavioral guidance. It does not explicitly mention side effects or failure modes, but those are minor for a getter with an output schema.

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?

Two purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence is longer but earns its place by enforcing a critical content-source constraint with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers selection and invocation well. It would be slightly strengthened by explicitly directing the agent to call it before save_flashcards/save_quiz, but the 'only source' language already conveys that role.

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 schema only provides document_id: integer, and the description does not explicitly elaborate on that parameter. The phrases 'of a document' and 'this document's material' imply the identifier selects the target document, but the description does not mention where to source the ID from or how to handle missing documents.

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 and object: returning the stored source material (text concepts) of a document. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling save/study/export operations and establishes it as the retrieval step for content generation.

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?

It explicitly states that the returned material must be the only source when generating flashcards and quiz questions, and forbids outside facts or the model's own knowledge. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the generation context makes the intended usage clear.

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