Retrieve details for a specific document in a File Search store, including its state, size, and metadata by providing the document resource name.
Get details of a specific document in a File Search store, including state, size, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_name | Yes | Document resource name, e.g. "fileSearchStores/abc123/documents/doc456" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what fields are returned (state, size, metadata), which is useful, but does not cover error behavior or missing-document handling.
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?
A single efficient sentence listing the key returned fields. No waste, but also no front-loaded caveats or differentiation.
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?
For a read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It does not mention what happens on invalid names or whether the store must exist, but these are minor gaps.
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 the document_name parameter is fully documented in the schema with a format example. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource: get a specific document in a File Search store. It clearly distinguishes retrieval by name from sibling list_documents and get_store, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus gemini_list_documents or gemini_get_store. The phrase 'specific document' implies retrieval by name, but no explicit context or exclusions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.