inkbolt_document_query

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond that: default visibility/lock filtering ('visible, unlocked items') and the crucial constraint that 'Returned command indices address this document revision,' warning the agent that indices are revision-scoped.

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?

Three tight clauses lead with the primary capability, then add the optional anchor behavior and the default/revision caveats. Every sentence carries load. Slightly dense with specialized vocabulary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. The description covers defaults, coordinate frames, and revision-scoped indices, which is strong for a query tool with nested filter semantics. The main gap is sibling differentiation and the meaning of response_format.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by mapping prose to parameters: 'content type' (types), 'shape' (shapes), 'inclusive geometry bounds' (region), 'visible, unlocked items' (visible_only/include_locked), and 'path anchors in local/world coordinates' (include_anchors). Only response_format and anchor_bounds semantics are unexplained, but the added meaning over the raw schema is substantial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Discover editable item IDs by content type, shape and inclusive geometry bounds.' An agent understands this is a filtered query over document items. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like inkbolt_document_inspect or inkbolt_document_inspect_page, which likely overlap in intent.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. The description doesn't tell the agent whether to reach for this instead of document_inspect or document_inspect_page when hunting for item IDs. Conditions for using anchors vs region are also left implicit.

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