get_document

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates a read operation ('get') and enumerates return fields. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the operation is simple and non-destructive.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a clear purpose upfront. It includes necessary details without being overly verbose.

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?

For a simple get tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the functionality and return structure adequately. It could mention error handling for non-existent documents, but overall sufficient.

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?

The description explains the 'doc_id' parameter as a SHA256 hash, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. It also details return fields, though these are not 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 clearly states it retrieves metadata and statistics for a document, using specific verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document_chunks' and 'delete_document'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implicitly indicates it's for metadata retrieval, but no direct comparison or exclusion of other tools.

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