yuque_get_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic action of getting a doc, without mentioning that the 'raw' parameter controls output format, potential response structure, or any edge cases. This is minimal beyond the function name.

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 short sentence that is immediately understandable. Every word contributes, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the identification method.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any parameter nuances. It only covers how to identify the doc, leaving the return format, raw behavior, and error conditions unexplained. This is simply too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 needs to compensate. It explains that namespace is required and that either slug or doc_id is used as the identifier, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'raw' parameter, which is a significant gap for a parameter with a default and behavioral impact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single doc'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list or search by specifying the identifier scheme (namespace + slug or doc_id). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving exactly one doc when you know its namespace and either slug or doc_id. This implies a use case distinct from list/search tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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