get_document_info

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

With no annotations, the description must provide all behavioral context, but it only states that it 'gets detailed information'. It does not disclose what the information includes, whether it is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, performance implications, or what the return format is. Thus, the description lacks transparency about the tool's 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and clearly names the resource ('detailed information about the current InDesign document'). Every word earns its place; there is no waste or excessive elaboration.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining what the tool returns. Saying 'detailed information' is vague and does not specify the structure or breadth of the returned data. An agent cannot know from this description what information will actually be retrieved, making it insufficiently complete for reliable selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids any parameter-related details. This is appropriate given the empty input 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about the current InDesign document'. It is not a tautology and has a specific focus on document info. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like view_document or list_styles, which may also provide document-related information.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a single declarative sentence without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. No sibling tools are referenced, so the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.

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