parse_document

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic action. There is no mention of side effects, required permissions, whether events are automatically added, or what the tool returns. With no annotations provided, this is a critical gap.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 9 words) but at the expense of necessary detail. It omits crucial information about parameters, behavior, and usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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 has three parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not cover return values or typical use cases.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (content, document_name, default_parties). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use each parameter.

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 it parses a document and extracts potential chronology events, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_event, delete_event, etc., which manage events rather than extracting them from documents.

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. It does not mention contexts where parsing is appropriate, prerequisites, or when other tools might be better suited. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated for usage.

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