get_document_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields and implies a read-only operation, but does not cover error handling, auth requirements, or behavior on invalid input. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise at 7 lines, uses bullet points for clarity, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simple nature (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: what is returned and when to use it. It could mention error cases or edge conditions, but for its complexity level, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both doc_id and collection. The description adds value by explaining that doc_id accepts both full ID and hash, and collection defaults if omitted, but this information is already partially covered in schema. The description does not significantly deepen parameter understanding 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 returns summary and metadata for a specific document, listing specific fields (title, summary, tags, source path, chunk count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_document or ingest_document by focusing on retrieval of structured information.

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 explicitly advises using this tool after list_collections to get details about documents, providing a clear usage sequence. It does not specify when not to use it, but the context given is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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