ris:get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: token-preserving sectioning, disk writing with metadata-only return, and dependency of id on applikation. Could mention auth or rate limits but sufficient for common cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every clause adds value: 'Retrieve as Markdown', alternatives for input, section behavior, save path behavior. 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?

No output schema, but description specifies return format (Markdown or metadata-only for save_path). Does not detail metadata contents or error handling, but given 5 parameters and complex behaviors (sectioning, saving), it is reasonably complete for an agent.

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 100% (baseline 3), but description adds substantial value: explains preference for content_url over id+applikation, token-preserving nature of section, and side effect of save_path. These details go well beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a RIS document as Markdown' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ris:search (search) and ris:get_norm (norm retrieval) by focusing on document retrieval via content_url or id.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pass the `content_url` returned by ris:search (preferred), or an `id` (Dokumentnummer) together with its `applikation`. Provides clear context for when to use each parameter and mentions section/save_path for specific use cases. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implied by preference.

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