get_doc

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: "fetch" implies a read and "Docs only" implies a resource-type restriction, but there is no statement about missing-id errors, permissions, or whether paths are resolved the same way as ids. An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is legitimately omitted, which keeps this at a borderline 3 rather than lower.

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 compact sentence plus a parenthetical prerequisite, with the scope restriction (“Docs only”) front-loaded ahead of the mechanism. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity pushes some necessary detail out entirely rather than merely condensing it.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers action, key, scope, and the id-discovery path, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral note about failure when the id/path does not resolve, notable because no annotations backfill it.

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% for the single required "id" parameter, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by revealing that the value may be either an id or a path. It does not clarify the path format, whether it is relative to a root, or how the two forms are distinguished.

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?

"fetch by id/path" gives a specific verb and lookup key for a doc resource, and "Docs only" scopes it against document-agnostic siblings like get_task. It does not describe what a doc is or what comes back, but the tool's action is unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to search_docs to obtain an id first, which is the key prerequisite for a by-id fetch tool. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. fetching a non-doc resource), but the "Docs only" prefix covers the main exclusion.

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