sd_get_raw_document_by_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (RawDocument with id, xml content, and path) and the path base (/db), but it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or potential side effects. The mention of a 'ctx' parameter not in the schema adds slight ambiguity. Middle ground is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a summary, purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, args, and returns sections. Each part serves a distinct informative purpose without redundancy. It is sufficiently detailed yet easy to scan, and the front-loaded summary ensures quick understanding.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, parameters, and return value. Minor gaps include lack of error context (e.g., path not found) and no explicit mention of read-only behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 a bare 'doc_path' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by defining it as 'Path to the document (relative to /db)', adding crucial context. It also documents the ctx argument (though not in schema), which helps explain progress reporting. Clear value beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Retrieve raw XML document by its file path' uses a specific verb with resource and scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the alternative 'get_raw_document_by_id()' and highlighting the path-based advantage, so it differentiates from other document retrieval tools.

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 includes dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections with explicit conditions: use when a file path is known from browse_collection, avoid when xml:id is available (pointing to get_raw_document_by_id) and for exploration (recommending browse/search). This is exemplary guidance.

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