Get Documents

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about detail levels and search methods, but does not disclose pagination behavior (offset/limit) or response format, which are present in the schema.

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 concise but incomplete; the detail levels sentence is truncated. It includes an example and a referral to another tool, which saves space but undermines self-containment.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and incomplete description, the context is insufficient for reliable tool invocation. The referral to grist_help is a crutch; the description should stand alone.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions docId, name_contains, workspaceId, and detail_level implicitly, but fails to explain offset, limit, response_format. It defers to grist_help for full schema, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's purpose: finding documents by various methods (ID, name, workspace, browse all). It distinguishes from sibling tools like grist_get_records (records vs documents) and grist_get_workspaces. However, the description is truncated, missing the full detail level options.

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 when to use each search method (e.g., 'by ID (fastest)'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. There is no guidance on prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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