read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the optional synopsis return format but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid document IDs. For a read operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important optional functionality. No wasted words or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and optional feature but lacks context about permissions, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the synopsis option, which aligns with the 'includeSynopsis' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'content of a document', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_notes' or 'read_synopsis' by focusing on document content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_read' which might handle multiple documents.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_read' for multiple documents, 'search_content' for finding specific content, or 'read_synopsis' for just the synopsis. It mentions the optional synopsis inclusion but doesn't explain when that feature should be used.

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