kms_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and the description usefully discloses the return payload (content, transcriptions, metadata), but it is silent on permissions, whether access is logged, and output format or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, key, and payload in order. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential retrieval semantics and return contents. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees or error behavior when an ID is not found, which would be the remaining value-add.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents documentId as a UUID string. The description adds only the redundant 'by ID' framing, so it neither compensates nor detracts — the baseline of 3 for a fully-covered single param applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (document) with the lookup key (by ID) and the payload returned (full content, transcriptions, metadata). It implicitly separates itself from the search/list siblings by being ID-based rather than query-based, but never names an alternative to sharpen that distinction.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the precondition (you must already have a documentId), which is the only usage guidance present. There is no explicit when-to-use versus kms_search or kms_list_documents, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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