get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens if the document is not found, or any potential side effects. It only mentions the return content, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant words. It is concise and to the point, earning a high score for structure and brevity.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and minimal description leaves gaps in usage guidance and behavioral context. It is adequate for a basic getter but not fully complete for an agent making an informed decision.

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 no description for document_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameter identifies which document's summary and source paths to return, but it does not explain the format or origin of the document_id, nor its relationship to other tools. This adds some semantic value but not comprehensive guidance.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'one document manifest summary and all source paths seen for it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists documents) and get_evidence (which presumably retrieves evidence), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_documents or get_evidence. The description implies usage for retrieving a single document's details, but does not mention context, exclusions, or why one would choose it over a sibling tool.

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