read_document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the original text (possibly truncated), and explains the truncation contract (increase max_chars to retrieve the rest). This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's output semantics.

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 well-structured with a clear statement of purpose, usage context, return details, and examples. It is slightly lengthy but every section earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy with the annotation 'readOnlyHint' doesn't detract significantly.

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 output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how output is truncated, and how to recover full text. The examples reinforce correct usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description reinforces the purpose of max_chars in the truncation note but doesn't add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 tool extracts text from document files (pdf/docx/pptx/svg) and explicitly notes it does not summarize. It differentiates from siblings by naming the specific use case (inspecting files from scan_folder/analyze_folder) and alternative tools (read_image_text, analyze_folder), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (detailed look at a found file, or continuing a truncated analyze_folder summary) and when-not-to-use (PNG images -> read_image_text, folder-wide scanning -> analyze_folder). Also gives a concrete example of user phrasing, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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