get_document_profile_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool retrieves document type, retrieval profile, and query strategy, implying a read-only operation. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or side effects, the description's boundary conditions and lack of mutability language make it sufficiently transparent. A minor deduction for not affirming it is a safe, non-destructive operation.

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 consists of three concise sentences: purpose, usage scenarios, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses no filler, and every sentence adds value. Perfectly structured for quick understanding.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (assumed present), the description covers purpose, appropriate usage, and limitations. It explicitly states the document must be in the server's index and not for general advice. No gaps are apparent, making it contextually complete.

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 one required parameter 'document' with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no description in the schema. The tool description mentions 'a specific PDF' but does not explicitly define what the 'document' parameter expects (e.g., document ID, filename). The description fails to add essential semantic meaning beyond the schema, making it difficult for an agent to know how to populate the parameter correctly.

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 'Get document type, retrieval profile, and how to query a specific PDF,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pdf_context_tool by focusing on document profile metadata rather than full-text search.

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 explicit when-to-use ('when starting work on a named document, when choosing between semantic search vs sequential reading, or when the user asks how a document is classified') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use for documents not in this server's index or for general ML/PDF advice') scenarios, offering clear guidance on appropriate context.

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