kb_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying it returns full extracted content plus metadata, not just search chunks. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, auth requirements, or potential limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some but not rich behavioral detail.

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 long, with the action and key differentiator ('full extracted content + metadata') front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 readOnly annotations, the description covers the core return value, use cases, and differentiates from search. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention possible failure modes or the config parameter, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (project_id, document_id, config). It implies document_id refers to a known document but doesn't define it explicitly or mention the role of project_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 tool reads a KB document's full extracted content and metadata, distinguishing it from search chunks. It also names specific use cases: pulling a known document into context or reading a previously-written artifact end-to-end. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings like kb_search.

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 clear context for when to use: when a full document is needed rather than search chunks, and for reading known artifacts end-to-end. It implicitly contrasts with kb_search by saying 'not just search chunks', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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