read_doc_contents

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

The description indicates a read operation, which is inherently non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or that no additional permissions are required. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more explicit about side effects.

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 directly states the purpose in one sentence without redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 read operation, the description fully explains the return value (contents as a string) and the required input (doc_id). No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 only parameter, doc_id, is described as 'ID of the document we want to read', providing sufficient clarity. However, the description adds no further details beyond the schema, and the coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to read and return the contents of a document as a string. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_doc, edit_doc_contents, and delete_doc, which imply write operations.

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 usage when a read operation is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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