get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation without stating it is non-destructive, but that is implicit from 'Get... metadata'. It does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context beyond the tool name but is minimal.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first explains what the tool does; the second directs users to the alternative for content. No redundant words or 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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned (title, parent location, settings) and the primary purpose. The parameter details are handled by the schema. The sibling differentiation is clearly stated. The description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 both parameters documented in the schema (team_id with fallback note, doc_id as required). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a single Doc's metadata'), the identifier ('by id'), and the API version ('ClickUp Docs v3'). It also specifies what metadata is included: title, parent location, and settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc_pages, which is explicitly mentioned for content retrieval.

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 explicitly directs users to use get_doc_pages for reading actual content when metadata is insufficient. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus an alternative. No further exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for the simple use case.

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