ezd_dokument_get_content

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

The annotation already signals readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds little beyond restating the operation: it doesn't disclose what form the content takes, whether it returns base64, binary, text, a URL, or how errors behave. There is no meaningful behavioral context beyond the name itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant parameter listings. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful behavioral detail, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what 'content' means and what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It also doesn't explain how this relates to similar document tools, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly interpret the result or choose this tool with confidence.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it doesn't need to compensate because the schema covers all five parameters.

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 ('Pobierz' – get) and a clear resource ('zawartosc dokumentu' – document content), indicating a read operation distinct from sibling tools like ezd_dokument_get_metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from get_marked or attachment-related tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ezd_dokument_get_metadata or ezd_addin_get_attachment_for_print. The description states only what the tool does, not when it should be preferred.

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