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 discloses that large documents are truncated and that the response indicates this, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not cover all possible behaviors (e.g., error handling), but it adds meaningful transparency beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the truncation caveat is placed second. It is concise, well-structured, and every sentence 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does, the key identifier, and the major limitation (truncation). It does not explain what 'says so' means in the response or mention error cases, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate and likely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% – the parameter 'source' is described as 'Source path relative to the corpus root.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that, just restating the role of the parameter. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is correct.

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 the verb 'return', the resource 'full text of one indexed document', and the identifier 'source path'. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_chunk (chunk retrieval) and list_documents (listing) by specifying it returns the entire document text. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage when the full text of a single document is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not say 'use get_chunk for a specific chunk' or 'use search_documents for query-based retrieval'. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance, so it earns a 3.

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