Get_Document_Content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions text extraction from specific formats but omits important details such as what happens with unsupported formats, rate limits, file size constraints, or whether it returns plain text or binary data. This lack of detail limits 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and supported formats. It is front-loaded with verb and resource, and contains no filler. Minor deduction for missing a second sentence about output, but overall very concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to clarify the return type (e.g., plain text, extracted content) or error handling for unsupported formats. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which is not fully met.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the sole parameter 'file_path' and its meaning. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets baseline expectations but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Get the content' and the resource 'document', and lists supported formats (PDF, Word, Excel, text files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on creation, deletion, or listing. However, it does not specify what form the content takes (e.g., raw text vs. extracted text) or the output format, preventing a top score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like Get_SharePoint_Tree or List_SharePoint_Documents. The description implies it is for reading document content, but does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context on when it is appropriate.

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