get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the team plan is not exposed by the Plugin API and should be reported as unknown or with user-declared/observed-limit evidence. This is a real behavioral constraint beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover return format or error behavior.

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 only three sentences but is poorly structured: the first sentence lumps multiple unrelated return items together, the second is a caveat about team plans that interrupts the main point, and the third is a timing instruction. The core action is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is dense and hard to parse, making the overall structure confusing.

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?

With annotations covering the read-only nature and no output schema, the description does provide some behavioral guidance (unknown team plan reporting) and timing advice. However, for a tool with an empty schema and no output schema, an agent still lacks clarity on exactly what data is returned and how to interpret the page budget or capabilities. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in return value explanation.

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?

There are zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to document any parameters; the empty schema means no parameter semantics are required. The faint mention of returning page IDs and capabilities is part of the return description rather than parameter semantics.

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 title is missing, and the description 'Read the open file, page IDs and capabilities/page budget' is a disorganized mix of verbs and nouns that doesn't clearly state what resource is being retrieved. Against siblings like get_node, get_selection, or get_design_system, the intended distinct purpose is not well differentiated – it's presented as a read tool, but the description extends into guidance about team plans and planning pages rather than defining the resource.

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 says 'Inspect this after connecting and before planning pages,' which is a clear when-to-use instruction. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative tools named, but the timing guidance is specific enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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