ass_document_info

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 implicitly discloses a read/no-side-effect nature, states the current-document defaulting behavior, notes the 0-based index convention, and describes the entire return shape. It does not mention any permission requirements, but for a pure information-read tool that is a minor omission.

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 Args block is tight and front-loaded, but the description then lists a very long set of return fields. Since an output schema exists, much of this enumeration is redundant and inflates the description beyond what an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 single-optional-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the definition covers the defaulting rule and index convention adequately, and return values are documented by the schema. The remaining gap is the lack of sibling differentiation against ass_stats.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single doc_id parameter. It does so by explaining that doc_id identifies the document to describe and that omitting it targets the current document, adding meaning the bare anyOf string/null schema does not convey.

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+resource combination ('Detailed information about one document') and enumerates exactly what the returned summary contains, which makes the scope concrete. It distinguishes itself from ass_list_documents, but does not explicitly separate its role from ass_stats or ass_get_script_info.

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 only guidance is the argument default ('the current one when omitted'), which is useful context for calling it. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to siblings like ass_stats for aggregate metrics or ass_get_line for line-level data.

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