read_doc_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns content as a string, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, performance, rate limits, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more context on errors or return format would improve completeness, but it's not severely lacking for such a simple 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'doc_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 contents') and resource ('of a document'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling 'edit_document' by focusing on reading rather than editing. However, it doesn't specify if it reads the entire document or partial content, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'edit_document' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like document accessibility or permissions. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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