Swagger: Get Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds that the tool returns content and metadata and works with specific content types, which is modest additional context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences plus a toolset and parameter line. Information is front-loaded, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 read operation with one parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what it does, when to use it, and the required parameter.

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 description repeats the parameter meaning ('Document UUID - unique identifier for the document'), which is already in the schema with 100% coverage. No additional constraints or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 'Get document content and metadata' by document ID, and mentions use cases for HTML or Markdown from table of contents. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the purpose is specific and well-understood.

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 provides a use case ('retrieving HTML or Markdown content from table of contents items'), implying when to use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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