get_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, and it does disclose the non-obvious side effect that a missing directory will be created and that return value differs by mode. It omits error behavior (e.g., a bogus documentId/documentPath) and any permission or payload-size constraints, which keeps it short of full transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and then branches into the two modes, with the payoff of writing a file stated last. It is dense but every clause carries information; a small readability cost from packing all four params' concepts into one run-on sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description compensates by describing both possible return values and the filesystem side effect. The remaining gap is that all four parameters are optional, yet the description never states what happens if none of document/documentId/documentPath is supplied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns above baseline by explaining that `path` switches the tool into file-writing mode and that the resulting file path can be fed back through `documentPath`. It adds the directory-auto-creation detail not present in the schema, but says nothing about `document` vs `documentId` precedence.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "取回一份文档的完整 JSON" (retrieve a document's complete JSON), and it makes the dual-mode behavior explicit (write to file when path is given, return directly otherwise). It does not name or differentiate against near-siblings like inspect_document, check_document, or render_document, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word "完整" (complete).

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 gives a useful selection rule between the two modes of this tool (path vs no path) and explains the downstream use case for the file output (drag into 「我的项目」, or pass back via documentPath). However, it never says when to choose this over inspect_document/check_document or what to do when no identifier is supplied, so usage against alternatives is only implied.

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