clio_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read vs. write, required permissions, side effects). It only states it is a connector operation, offering no insight into its behavior.

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?

While the description is short, it is not well-structured: the purpose is buried in a generic connector note, and key information (what the tool does) is missing. A concise but informative description would be better.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description still fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what document is being retrieved, what the output contains, or any constraints.

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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaningful information beyond what the schema already shows (a string with default '{}'). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to clarify what arguments are expected.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Clio connector operation get_document') without explaining what the tool actually does, e.g., retrieving a specific document by ID or other criteria. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like clio_get_contact or clio_get_matter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other similar tools (e.g., clio_list_documents, clio_upload_document). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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