get_doc_as_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns Markdown, includes comment anchor text by default, and comment mode options. However, it does not mention safety/read-only nature explicitly, potential errors, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 concise at about 6 sentences, well structured with the main action first, then distinct differences, followed by comment behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition or waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the primary output format and comment handling. It does not explain the return value structure (handled by output schema) or error cases, but for a read tool, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is lack of explicit read-only guarantee.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds context about comment anchor text but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema for most parameters. 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?

The description clearly states it reads a Google Doc and returns it as clean Markdown with optional comment context. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_doc_content which returns plain text, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly differentiates from get_doc_content by noting this tool preserves formatting, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not address exclusions or other alternative tools (e.g., inspect_doc_structure, export_doc_to_pdf), though the main alternative is well covered.

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