Get Document File Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'technical metadata' scope; it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or result shape, but the output schema reduces the need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with concrete examples and no filler. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the definition is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that the description does not situate it among the many get_document_* siblings, leaving some ambiguity about which 'details' are meant.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but there is only one parameter, document_id, whose name and integer type are self-explanatory. The description's phrase 'for a document' loosely ties the parameter to the resource, though it never explicitly states how document_id is used.

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 names a specific action ('Return technical metadata') and a concrete resource (a document), with examples 'checksums, filenames' that hint at file-level details. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_document_content or get_document_notes, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling getters such as get_document, get_document_content, or get_document_notes. The examples imply 'technical metadata', but there is no explicit condition, exclusion, or alternative.

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