doc_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters (fully documented in the schema) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about authentication needs, error handling, or return format, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema. It meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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 description mentions retrieving by 'ID', which aligns with the 'documentId' parameter in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (including the 'studio' parameter with its default value and options). The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'doc_get' vs 'doc_list' or 'user_get', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'doc_list' (for listing documents) or 'user_get' (for retrieving user data). There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or any explicit 'when' or 'when not' instructions, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.

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