get_document_id_from_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds' an ID, implying a read-only lookup, but doesn't specify whether it returns a single ID or multiple matches, what happens if no match is found, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a lookup with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., string ID, error handling), parameter constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns critical identifiers, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by title,' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., exact title, partial match) or the role of 'collectionId' (optional UUID for scoping). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 'Find document ID by title' clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('document ID'), specifying the lookup mechanism ('by title'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document' (which retrieves full content) and 'search_documents' (which performs broader searches), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the exact matching behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'search_documents' (which might also return IDs) or 'get_document' (if the ID is already known). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about its role in the workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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