get_document

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only retrieval operation returning full text, which is appropriate. It does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, error handling, or any access restrictions, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is a moderate gap.

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?

One succinct sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and key discriminator. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or generic filler.

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 tool with only two required, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not mention what happens when the document is not found, how to discover IDs, or any edge cases, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. Both parameters are documented: space names the dataspace and doc_id identifies the document. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already 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 verb ('Retrieve'), a concrete resource ('the full text of a document'), and the lookup mechanism ('by its ID'), all scoped to a Locus dataspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents or search, which serve different discovery purposes.

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 implies the right use case: call this when you already have a document ID and need the full text. However, it does not explicitly say to use list_documents or search when the ID is unknown, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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