document_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned data set and implies a passive read, but says nothing about permissions, whether it mutates state, or performance characteristics. It stops short of the behavioral context expected of an unannotated tool.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists payload contents with no filler. Efficient, though it could be organized as purpose plus parameter note.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description broadly matches it. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'doc' parameter, which is the only thing the agent truly needs to supply.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never clarifies what 'doc' is — document name, path, index, or object handle. For the sole required parameter, that ambiguity is a real invocation risk.

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 resource (a document) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (file size, object names, bounding box, undo depth, last 5 operations). It reads as a read-only inspection tool, distinguishable from mutation siblings like transform or boolean, though it doesn't explicitly separate itself from list_history/object_history.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus list_history, object_history, list_objects, or list_documents, and no prerequisites or context given. The agent must infer usage from the field list alone.

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