show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior, and it largely delivers. It explains the conditional behavior between metadata-only and full-page text, including the special 0 value for page_number. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'read' and 'shows' strongly imply it, and it avoids destructive or surprising language.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clean Args list for parameter details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the conditional behavior is laid out efficiently without 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?

This is a low-complexity, read-style tool with 3 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main usage modes, the meaningful special value, and the optional collection scope. It does not discuss error handling for missing/unindexed documents, but that is not essential here given the output schema and straightforward nature of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: document_name is given a filename example, page_number is documented as 1-indexed with a special 0 meaning, and collection is identified as optional scoping. The collection parameter remains somewhat vague, but the core parameter semantics are clearly conveyed beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Use to read a specific page') and immediately adds a second purpose ('check whether a document is already indexed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, find, or ingest by framing it as a direct read/metadata inspection operation.

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?

It states clear use cases: reading a specific page or checking index status. It also explains when the metadata-only behavior applies. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like find or list, nor say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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