clio_get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or additional behavior like potential pagination of version history.

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 extremely brief (five words) but is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence. While there is no wasted wording, it is under-specified and lacks structure, making it less helpful than an efficient sentence would be.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'version history' includes, any ordering, pagination, or error conditions. A simple get operation still benefits from clarifying what the response contains beyond the two broad categories.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It does not explicitly state that 'id' refers to a document identifier, relying instead on the tool name for context. This is a marginal improvement over 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 'Document metadata plus version history' clearly identifies the resource (document) and the specific content returned (metadata and version history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_download_document (which retrieves the file itself) and clio_update_document (which modifies).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for metadata/history rather than file content, nor does it reference any conditions or prerequisites.

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