get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: output is metadata-only by default, content reads are 'bounded', pagination is continued via text/section cursors, and linked documents/files are not traversed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and lookup keys, then default behavior, then opt-in modes, then scope exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers mode selection, continuation, and scope boundaries for a 7-parameter tool. The only real omission is the undocumented 'detail' parameter, which leaves a small completeness gap.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain include_content, format, and the url vs document_uid choice. However the 'detail' enum (summary/full) is never explained in text, and the text_offsets/section_offsets continuation parameters are only clarified by their schema descriptions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a native Kaiten document'), names both lookup keys (URL or document_uid), and immediately distinguishes the default metadata-only behavior from the include_content/format modes. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_document_group or list_document_children without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance: metadata by default, include_content=true for bounded text, format=prosemirror for structured content, plus continuation instructions and an explicit exclusion ('Does not fetch linked documents or files'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for the adjacent document tools, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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