show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe error handling or authorization requirements. The description only maps argument values to outputs, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing arguments and conditional behavior. It is efficient with no redundant content, and the use of a list for arguments improves readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists but does not describe parameters; the description covers both operational modes (metadata vs page text) and the default/edge case (page_number 0). However, it omits error conditions and any prerequisites, making it slightly incomplete for a contextually rich 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 for parameter meaning. It provides meaningful explanations for document_name (with example), page_number (1-indexed, 0 means metadata), and collection (optional scope), adding clarity beyond the raw schema. This is solid but could offer more examples or constraints.

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 shows document metadata or page text, using a specific verb and resource. It internally distinguishes two modes (with/without page_number) and is distinct from siblings like 'list' or 'status' by its focus on individual document details.

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?

Usage is implied by the conditional behavior (without vs with page_number), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'list' or 'find', nor does it provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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