Read Document Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the WebSocket snapshot mechanism and the optional markdown output, enriching the behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, and each clause serves a purpose. It explains the optional parameter with a practical rationale without extra words.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, method (WebSocket snapshot), output format, and its relationship to a sibling tool. No critical information gaps remain.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning to includeMarkdown by linking it to rendered markdown and the equivalent export_doc_markdown call, going beyond the schema's simple boolean description.

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 reads document block content via a WebSocket snapshot, including blocks and plain text. It also distinguishes itself from export_doc_markdown by noting that includeMarkdown can obviate that separate call.

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 references export_doc_markdown as an alternative and explains when to use includeMarkdown, giving a concrete usage scenario. It does not exhaustively compare to other sibling read tools like get_doc, but the primary context is clear.

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