doc_get_raw_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns plain text content, which is a useful behavioral trait (stripping formatting). However, it does not mention permissions, whether the entire document is returned, or potential limitations like pagination or encoding.

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, concise phrase with no wasted words. It is immediately clear and front-loaded, fitting the notion that 'every sentence earns its place' — actually every phrase does.

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, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it tells what the tool does and what it returns (plain text). It does not explicitly detail return format or error cases, but the simplicity of the operation makes this a minor 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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter 'document_id' as '文档 ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond 'document_id is required', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb + resource: '获取飞书文档的纯文本内容' (get the plain text content of a Feishu document). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_get_block (returns a block) and doc_list_blocks (lists blocks) by emphasizing plain text as opposed to structured blocks.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when plain text of a document is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not contrast with doc_get_block or doc_list_blocks, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between these related tools.

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