read_doc_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the contents are returned as a string and does not mention permissions, read-only behavior, error cases, or what happens with missing or malformed document IDs. For a read operation, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action immediately. The minor grammatical error ('return it a string' instead of 'return it as a string') slightly detracts from polish but does not harm clarity significantly.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the action and the return type. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could better describe return value details, potential errors, or the scope of content returned (e.g., full document vs. excerpt).

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 100%, with the single parameter 'doc_id' already described as 'Id of the document to read'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('contents of a document') and even specifies the return type ('a string'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'edit-document', which implies modification rather than reading.

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 usage is implied by the tool's purpose: use it when you need to view a document's contents. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose, though the sibling name 'edit-document' hints at the distinction.

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