read_doc_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and returns text, but it does not discuss error handling, authorization details beyond 'authorized corpus', or any rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. There is no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description fails to define the 'path' parameter or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter, which it does not. Thus, it is incomplete for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the 'path' parameter is undefined in the schema. The description does not elaborate on what 'path' means (e.g., format, absolute vs relative, document ID). It only implies it's a document identifier, leaving the agent with minimal semantic guidance.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('a single document'), the scope ('from the authorized corpus'), and the output ('return its text'). This succinctly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kb_search_tool' (search) and 'publish_report_tool' (create/publish).

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 one needs to retrieve a specific document's text by path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. With sibling tools present, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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