get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the returned content format, but says nothing about permission/auth requirements, behavior for non-doc item IDs, or whether missing items error versus return empty.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and every word earns its place, though the terseness leaves obvious gaps that could have been closed in the same sentence.

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 is simple (2 required params) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition does not fully equip an agent to disambiguate from get_item or understand the ID formats.

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% and the description explains neither board_id nor item_id. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory for a board-scoped retrieval, so the gap is modest, but no syntax, format, or scoping behavior is added.

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 and resource ("Get a doc format item") and adds that the content is markdown/html, which tells an agent this returns content rather than just metadata. It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling get_item, so an agent must infer which one to call for non-doc items.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_item, get_document, or list_items, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the doc-type scoping condition from the name alone.

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