get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently communicates that the operation is a read, that the output is a complete Markdown page, and that it does not return partial sections. This is sufficient for a simple, non-destructive documentation access tool.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the prerequisite discovery command is provided second. Every word 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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, output format, and how to find valid inputs. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing section-level reads to get_document_section, but the word 'complete' already does most of that work.

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 already describes the path parameter at 100% coverage, including a relative-path example. The description adds the useful hint that list_documents can be used to discover available pages, but it does not add further detail about path formatting or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Read') and a precise object ('a complete Markdown documentation page'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from get_document_section. It also names list_documents as the discovery mechanism, making the tool's role in the docs workflow easy to identify.

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 gives clear context: use this to read an entire documentation page, and use list_documents first to find valid paths. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_document_section, but the word 'complete' plus the sibling's name makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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