Read Document Content

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 effectively describes the output format (TipTap XML) and supported elements (blocks, marks, lists), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation-free read tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The detailed formatting examples are useful but could be more structured; however, every sentence adds value by clarifying output semantics, avoiding waste.

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 complexity (read operation with specific output format), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It excels in explaining the return format but fails to cover parameters or broader behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. Parameters 'graph_id' and 'document_id' are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purpose, format, and sourcing unclear. For a tool with two required parameters, this is a significant deficiency.

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 specific action ('Reads document content') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'write_document', 'append_to_document', or 'get_block' by specifying the output format as TipTap XML with full formatting. It goes beyond a simple read operation by detailing what content is retrieved.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_block' or 'query_blocks'. The description focuses on output format but does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on sibling tool names alone.

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