read_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return format (plain text with metadata header) and the supported identifier types, providing insight into lookup behavior. However, it does not mention error handling or uniqueness requirements, which would increase transparency further.

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 summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds value, and there is no irrelevant information.

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 (one parameter), and the description covers identification and return format. The presence of an output schema further specifies return structure. However, it does not address what happens if the identifier is ambiguous or not found, leaving a minor 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?

The input schema only defines 'identifier' as a string. The description compensates by explaining the three valid forms (title, path, UUID) with concrete examples, significantly enriching the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 reads the content of a specific document, with a precise verb ('read') and resource ('document'). It further specifies the accepted identifier types (title, path, UUID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_chapter or get_notes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_chapter or get_notes. The description only explains how to specify the identifier, but not under what circumstances to choose this tool over others.

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