read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the document is size-limited, text is decoded, and binary data is base64-encoded. These details go beyond a simple 'read' and help set expectations about response format and potential limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with two concise clauses. It packs essential information (limit, decoding, encoding) without any filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned (text vs. base64 binary) and notes the size limitation. It lacks error handling or a detailed size threshold, but these are not critical for the basic read functionality.

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 a single 'path' parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, offering no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. Since coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, this dimension is severely under-served.

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 'Read' with resource 'document', and adds specificity with 'size-limited' and encoding behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item_info and open_share_url, which focus on metadata or sharing rather than content reading.

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 implies this tool is for reading document content, making it the go-to choice when the full text or binary payload is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over sibling tools.

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