Get ONES Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds that the tool returns markdown content and accepts a ref in URL or #requirement format, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, focused sentence that conveys the key function and input format. No redundant information, and critical details are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description omits parameter documentation for 2 of 3 parameters and does not differentiate from closely related siblings. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, many siblings), but the description is too brief to fully guide invocation without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'ref' parameter (URL or #requirement). It does not explain the boolean parameters 'include_raw' or 'include_resources', leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get ONES doc by context ref (URL or #requirement) and return markdown content.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (ONES doc), input method (context ref with format clarification), and output format (markdown). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc_chunks (returns chunks) or get_doc_outline (returns outline).

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 such as get_doc_chunks, get_doc_section, or get_doc_outline. It does not mention conditions like 'use this for full content' or 'use get_doc_section for a specific section.' Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission forces the agent to infer usage from name and purpose alone.

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