uselink_read_document

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 reveals the return fields and the id/slug exclusivity constraint, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or response structure. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action, states the key constraint, and lists return fields without redundancy. Every clause adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the main behavior, return values, and the id/slug constraint. It lacks error-handling details, but for a straightforward read operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers both parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics by stating that 'exactly one is required,' which is not encoded in the schema. This clarifies the OR relationship and prevents misuse.

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 tool reads full document content with a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('uselink document'), and identification method (id or slug). It distinguishes from siblings like uselink_list_documents or uselink_read_project by emphasizing the single-document, full-content scope.

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?

It explicitly specifies the usage condition: read a single document by id or slug, with exactly one required. This gives clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, leaving some differentiation to the sibling list.

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