firestore-get-document-by-path

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. It states the read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns null for non-existent documents, or includes metadata. The phrase 'supports subcollections' hints at path flexibility but doesn't explain behavioral implications like error handling or response format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a document using full path') and adds a clarifying note ('supports subcollections'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and method but lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, return format, or performance characteristics. For a database read tool in a sibling-rich environment, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 'documentPath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the 'full path' concept and mentioning subcollections, but doesn't provide additional syntax examples, constraints, or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a document'), and specifies the method ('using full path') and capability ('supports subcollections'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'firestore-get-document' by emphasizing the path-based approach, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'firestore-batch-read' or 'firestore-query-collection-by-path'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'full path' and 'supports subcollections', suggesting this tool is for direct document retrieval when the exact path is known. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'firestore-get-document' (which might use different identifiers) or 'firestore-query-collection-by-path' (for filtered searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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