document_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a read-only operation via 'Get', requires an open document, and lists the returned fields. However, it does not disclose error behavior, access requirements, or what happens if doc_id is invalid.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information about the action, the required context, or the return shape.

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 metadata getter, the core action and return values are defined, but important context is missing: doc_id semantics are undocumented, there is no output schema, and there is no guidance on errors or preconditions beyond 'open document.' An agent would need to infer doc_id provenance from sibling tools like open_document.

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%, and the description says nothing about doc_id: not its format, not how to obtain it, not that it must reference an already-open document. The sole parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its 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 names a specific action (Get), a resource (open document), and exactly which fields are returned (kind, url, modified). It distinguishes itself from content-reading siblings like get_text and read_slide by limiting its scope to metadata, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusionary conditions or references to sibling tools. The only contextual hint is that the document must already be open, but the criteria for choosing document_info are left entirely implicit.

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