get-storage-document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value contains (e.g., document structure, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of retrieving a storage document, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId' represents, its format, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a Liveblocks storage document'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-yjs-document', which appears to serve a similar retrieval function for a different document type, so it misses full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get-room' and 'get-yjs-document' that might overlap in retrieval scenarios, the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

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