read_doc_contents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the contents as a string, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention potential side effects, errors, or permission requirements. Given the simplicity of a read operation, the description provides basic behavioral info but lacks deeper transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and return type. It contains no filler, redundant information, or unnecessary detail. 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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, clear purpose, and no output schema. The description covers the essential action and result. While it does not mention potential errors or permissions, these are common expectations for a read operation. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'doc_id' with 100% coverage ('Id of the document to read'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action (read) and the resource (document), and specifies the return value ('and return it as a string'). This is distinct from the sibling tool 'edit_document', which implies a modification tool. 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs edit_document or other alternatives. It only says what it does, but the naming of the sibling tool suggests a read-only use case. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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