read_document

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

Even without annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: the body is converted to Markdown, images appear as stable references that can be passed to update_document, and it clarifies what is not included (actual files). This goes beyond the simple read action and provides actionable insights.

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 three sentences but packs all essential information: purpose, return format, source of documentId, and image handling guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure puts the core action first.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to get the ID, what the return contains, and how to handle embedded image references. It also connects to related tools, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by mentioning an additional source for the documentId (ask_ai source reference) beyond search_documents, and by explaining the UUID format in context. This slight extension over the schema warrants a 4.

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 'Read a single Meet Rupert document by its UUID' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_documents (search) and update_document (modify). It also specifies what is returned: title, metadata, and body as Markdown.

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 context on when to use this tool: 'Get the documentId from search_documents or from an ask_ai source reference.' It also differentiates from attachment tools by stating to use list_attachments or download_attachment for files. However, it does not explicitly state situations where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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