describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists what is returned but does not mention if the operation is read-only, if permission is required, or any side effects. This lack of detail hurts transparency.

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 very concise (one fragment listing components) and front-loaded with 'Full document state'. However, it could be slightly improved by being a full sentence, but overall it efficiently conveys the core information.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear list of what the state includes. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) or whether it includes metadata. It is adequate but not rich.

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% (only one parameter 'doc_id' with description 'Document id'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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 explicitly states 'Full document state' and lists specific components (size, palette, layers, etc.), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'view' by providing a comprehensive snapshot rather than a single aspect.

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 the tool is used when a complete view of document state is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'view' for just the image), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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