get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves 'all indexed chunks' and returns 'full reconstructed document content', which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention failure cases or whether the document must already be indexed, but as a read-only retrieval tool, the provided behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a clear 'Args' section, and a 'Returns' statement. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., missing document) but is adequate for typical use.

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 description includes an 'Args' section with examples for both parameters (e.g., 'src/Device.h') and clarifies that file_path is relative. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 'Project' and 'File Path' titles, providing concrete guidance for correct invocation.

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 states 'Retrieve all indexed chunks of a specific document' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing full document retrieval rather than search results. The return statement further clarifies it outputs reconstructed content.

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 tool's context is clear: it is for retrieving a specific document by file path and project, as opposed to search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The use case is easily inferred from the parameters and the distinction from search siblings.

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