get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints that content is optional ('Optionally include full content'), but does not disclose response format, error handling, permissions, or what happens when content is omitted. This is minimal transparency for a read operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place: the action, the resource identifier, and the optional flag. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what is returned when content is excluded, or any pagination or formatting details. It is adequate for a basic get-by-ID, but not fully complete given the lack of structured context.

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 description must compensate. It clarifies that 'include_content' toggles full content inclusion, and document_id is self-explanatory from 'by ID'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not detail value formats or constraints.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('document by ID'). It also mentions optional content inclusion, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like list_documents. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search or list tools, so it misses the top mark for sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a document ID. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives like search or list_documents. For a simple fetch-by-ID tool, the implied context is adequate but not clearly stated.

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