co_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a scoping qualifier ('current document') and lists the returned settings, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, freshness guarantees, or potential side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with a clear lead phrase and a colon-delimited list of contents. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload. It enumerates the major setting groups, which is adequate for a zero-parameter read-only tool. Some details, such as the exact types or formats of paths and counters, remain implicit, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially covered; the description needs no additional parameter explanation. The listed settings describe the return payload, which is appropriate given the absence of an output 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 identifies the tool as returning detailed settings for the current document and enumerates what those settings include, such as kind, paths, folders, formats, counters, and queue depth. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like co_list_documents, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as co_status or co_list_documents. The description states what the tool returns but not when it should be preferred, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit signal is the phrase 'current document'.

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