kaiten_get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is some behavioral transparency, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any permissions. It adds little beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and key parameter in under 10 words.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the action, resource, and required identifier. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the implied return of the document, though adding expected response format could make it stronger.

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%: the parameter document_uid is already described as 'Document UID'. The description merely repeats 'by UID' without adding format, scope, or usage details, so it does not add value 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('Kaiten document'), and a retrieval key ('by UID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kaiten_list_documents (list vs get) and kaiten_get_document_group (different resource).

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?

Usage is implied: one uses this tool when they have a document UID and need the document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over kaiten_list_documents or other retrieval tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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