gws.docs.read

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the wrapped <untrusted-document-content> tags, the explicit warning about ignoring instructions inside user data, and the round-trip compatibility with insert_text/replace_text. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main function, secondary return, round-trip context, and security warning. No redundancy.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return formats (plain text, structured tree), the security-wrapping behavior, and round-trip compatibility. Enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for document_id and account. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 a Google Doc as plain text and mentions the structured Docs tree inclusion. It distinguishes from sibling write tools like insert_text/replace_text by focusing on read behavior, and from drive.read_file by specifying Google Docs.

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 implies when to use the tool (when plain text of a Google Doc is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like drive.read_file or docs.create. No direct 'use when' guidance.

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