quip_get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is markdown, but it omits other behavioral traits such as the effect of max_length (truncation), error handling for invalid thread IDs, and any authentication requirements. Although this is a read-only operation, key behaviors remain undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the essential verb, resource, and output format with no wasted words. It is extremely concise and effectively structured.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description is adequate: it states the resource and format, and the schema covers parameter details. Without an output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the return value (content as markdown), though it does not cover edge cases or error behavior. Overall, it is complete enough for straightforward 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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (thread_id and max_length), including descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get a Quip document's content as markdown' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Quip document's content'), and adds the output format ('as markdown'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quip_get_user and quip_get_folder. It precisely identifies what the tool does.

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 implies usage through its purpose—use when you need a Quip document's content as markdown—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No reference to sibling tools is made.

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