ris:get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits beyond the schema: returns Markdown, save_path writes to disk and returns metadata only, section is 'token-preserving'. This adds meaningful context about output behavior and side effects. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a retrieval tool this is 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter usage. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. The structure is compact and scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior. It explains the Markdown output, the metadata-only mode with save_path, and the section options. Some metadata details are unspecified, but for a retrieval tool this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting content_url is preferred, id requires applikation, and save_path triggers a metadata-only return. These usage nuances go beyond the schema descriptions, enriching the agent's understanding of how to invoke the parameters 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 starts with a specific verb+resource+output: 'Retrieve a RIS document as Markdown.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like ris:get_norm (which handles norms) and ris:toc (table of contents). The scope is explicit: retrieving RIS documents with optional partial content extraction.

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 clear usage context: content_url is preferred over id, id requires applikation, section for partial retrieval, save_path for writing to disk. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative sibling tools, but within the tool it offers strong guidance on parameter selection and combinations.

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