get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates the documentID, checks user access, and returns base64 content, which gives basic insight into its behavior. However, it omits details like error handling for invalid IDs or unauthorized access, idempotency, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 three sentences, each sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, mechanism, and validation flow. No redundant words or unnecessary details. It is concise and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, the key parameter, and the behavior (validation, access check, output format). It could mention error responses or size limits, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (documentID and sessionCredentials). The tool description adds only minor context about validation and access checking. Since the schema carries the load, the description's contribution is minimal, justifying a baseline score of 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 document content as a base64 string, using the verb 'get' and 'downloads'. It specifies the resource is a document and mentions validation and access checks. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_attachment', which likely serves a similar role for attachments, missing an opportunity for 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 like 'get_attachment' or other retrieval tools. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The tool exists among many siblings with similar purposes, but no context is given for appropriate selection.

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