get_document_composition

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 implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens when no document is active, or what the return value contains. The minimal description offers little beyond the verb 'read'.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; the description is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'composition' means, the return format, and potential error cases. It also fails to differentiate itself from get_file_composition. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It implies that document_id is optional and that when omitted, the selected or active document is used. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but does not clarify the parameter's type or format, leaving ambiguity.

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 the stored composition of a document, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_composition by mentioning 'document' vs 'file', though 'composition' remains somewhat vague without context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_composition or get_document_tree. The description does not mention any prerequisites, selection rules, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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