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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what happens if the document doesn't exist, or what format the response takes. For a document retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral understanding.

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 reasonably concise with a one-line purpose statement followed by a parameter list. However, the structure is basic and not particularly well-organized for quick comprehension. The parameter explanations are extremely brief (2-4 Chinese characters each), which borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 document retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. While it lists parameters, it doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error or external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter information by listing all 5 parameters with brief Chinese explanations. While these explanations are minimal ('索引名称' for index name, '文档 ID' for document ID, etc.), they at least provide basic semantic meaning that the schema lacks entirely. The description compensates significantly for the schema's complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 '获取文档' (Get document) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'doc_get' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of document, from what system, or with what characteristics. While it's clear this retrieves documents, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'doc_source' or 'doc_mget' in the sibling list.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple document-related tools in the sibling list (doc_bulk, doc_delete, doc_exists, doc_index, doc_mget, doc_source, doc_update), there's no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus other retrieval methods like 'doc_mget' for multiple documents or 'doc_source' for source fields only.

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