Get Document Info

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it does not return body text, which is critical for understanding its non-destructive nature and the 'cheaply' hint implies low computational 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 sentences: first states what it does and what metadata it returns, second provides usage guidance. No wasted 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Description covers purpose, scope, limitations, and prerequisites. Complete for a simple metadata retrieval 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?

Single parameter 'documentId' has schema description identifying it as a Scrivener document UUID from get_structure. Description mentions referencing get_structure but adds no further semantic nuance beyond schema (100% coverage).

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?

Description clearly states it returns metadata without body text, lists specific fields (title, type, word count, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings read_document and get_structure by contrasting use cases.

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 document, cheaply read word count) and when not to (use read_document for prose, get_structure for binder). Also states prerequisite: open project and valid document id.

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