Get ONES Document

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: include_resources=true refreshes image URLs and returns stable resource_id metadata, and it names the downstream tool that consumes those IDs. It omits whether the refresh has side effects or cost.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the resource workflow appended; no filler. The '#'-prefixed reference syntax and the semicolon-chained follow-up step are slightly dense, 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 values need not be described. The description covers the primary parameter and the resource workflow adequately, but with 0% schema description coverage the unexplained include_raw flag leaves a small completeness gap for a three-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It usefully defines 'ref' (URL or #requirement) and the effect of include_resources, but include_raw is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Get an ONES document') and names the accepted reference forms (URL or #requirement), which is more than the title alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many doc siblings (get_doc_section, get_doc_context, get_doc_outline, get_doc_chunks), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which doc-fetching variant to pick.

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?

Gives a clear conditional workflow: use include_resources=true to get refreshed image URLs and resource_id metadata, then call download_ones_resource_by_id for MCP-native image content. This is explicit guidance on an alternative tool and when to use it, though it never states when *not* to use this tool or how it relates to the other get_doc_* siblings.

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