gdocs_get_document_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation and states exactly what is retrieved, which gives basic transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention any authentication requirements, or describe potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if document_id is invalid or access is denied). This is adequate but not rich.

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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and result. Every clause earns its place: it specifies the verb, the resource, the specific metadata retrieved, and the purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (single parameter, simple read operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (title, character count, revision metadata) and why to use it (confirm access). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it.

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 100%, and the schema already adequately describes document_id as 'The unique Google Document identifier'. The description adds no extra meaning or usage guidance for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb ('retrieves'), a resource ('document'), and enumerates the exact data returned (title, character count, revision metadata). It also signals its purpose (confirm access before modifying), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gdocs_append_content that perform modifications.

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 phrase 'to confirm access before modifying' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. Since the sibling tools are mostly write operations (append, send, draft), the intended use as a pre-modification check is implied but not directly articulated as an exclusion.

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