Get Document Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the scope of returned data (metadata only, no body) and listing the metadata fields. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose statement, usage guidance, prerequisites. No unnecessary words.

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 metadata read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites. Could mention return format (e.g., JSON) but not essential.

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 has one required parameter (documentId) with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the format or constraints of documentId (e.g., expected type, example). Prerequisites are mentioned but not tied to the parameter itself.

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?

Clearly states it returns metadata for a single document without body text, listing specific fields (title, type, word count, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings by naming read_document and get_structure as alternatives for different needs.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (inspect a document or cheaply read word count) and when not (use read_document for prose, get_structure for binder). Also mentions prerequisite (open project, valid document id).

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