get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a read-like behavior through 'Retrieve' and sets return expectations with 'full content'. It does not mention error behavior, not-found cases, or permission requirements, but for a simple get-by-ID tool this is minimally adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief Args listing. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema property name, but it earns its place by adding semantic context that the schema lacks. No wasted words.

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 required parameter and an output schema that can communicate return structure—the description is nearly sufficient. Missing context includes explicit guidance on where the ID comes from (e.g., list_memories) and what happens for invalid IDs. These are minor but real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define document_id. It does so clearly: 'The integer ID of the document to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title by explaining that the parameter is the identifier of the target resource.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve the full content of a specific document or memory by its ID.' It also uses a retrieval-by-ID mechanism that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memwyre, list_memories, and save_memory.

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 usage context is implied: the agent should call this when it has an ID and needs the full content, rather than searching, listing, or saving. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit.

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