get_context_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it deliberately omits the transcript, explains that a document can be partial (frames empty while classification indicates pending extraction), and that re-running import completes it. This is comprehensive and honest about what the tool does and doesn't do.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately follows with important caveats. While longer than strictly necessary, every sentence adds value (e.g., partial state handling, sibling guidance). Minor wordiness prevents a 5, but it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the metadata returned (source, duration, tags, classification, transcript/frames availability) and explains the partial document scenario. However, it lacks specifics on the structure of classification or tags. Without an output schema, more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description already stating it comes from list_context_documents. The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantics about the parameter. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 tool retrieves metadata for a context document, listing specific metadata types (source, duration, tags, classification, transcript/frames availability). It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_context_document by noting it does NOT return the transcript, making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'START HERE when handed a document' as the 'cheapest possible orientation'. It also tells the agent when not to use it (for transcript, call read_context_document) and how to handle a partial document state, including the instruction to 'report that state honestly rather than as a failure'.

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