get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: access is gated by a path allowlist and ACL, which tells the agent reads can fail for authorization reasons. It stops short of describing failure behavior or return content.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than being tight and complete.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but it also gives no indication of what a successful read returns or how the ACL/allowlist manifests as an error. Adequate for a low-complexity tool, with clear gaps.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. 'path allowlist' hints that the path is validated against permitted locations, but no format, root, or examples are given, leaving the single parameter only partially clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (knowledge document), which separates it from task/agent siblings like get_task or get_agent_status. However it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest alternatives, list_documents and search_knowledge, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer on its own that this fetches a single document by path rather than listing or searching, despite three relevant siblings existing.

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