doc_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation and adds context about identifying content via doc_id or hash, as well as share_token support. Yet it does not disclose what happens when both doc_id and hash are supplied, or how agent_id and include_content affect behavior.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the accepted identifier modes. This is concise and well structured.

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?

While the output schema reduces the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for choosing and using this tool correctly among many siblings. It omits when to use doc_read versus doc_get, identifier precedence rules, the meaning of agent_id, and the behavior of include_content. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, this is a notable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds meaning for doc_id, hash, and share_token, but leaves agent_id and include_content unexplained. The compensation is only partial, hence a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 and resource: it reads the current version of a document (doc_id) or a blob (hash). It also mentions share_token access, which helps clarify the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like doc_get or doc_info.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer doc_read over doc_get, doc_info, or other related tools. It implies a read operation but provides no exclusionary or alternative-based usage instructions.

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