document_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes the full declaration and baseline, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as scope handling or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified, so brevity is achieved at the cost of clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is incomplete for tool selection and invocation. It lacks parameter semantics and sibling differentiation, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently decide when and how to call this 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%, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details. It never explains what 'id' or 'scope' mean, how they interact, or what values are expected. The vague reference to '存储身份' is not sufficient for an agent to populate the parameters correctly.

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 ('读取', read) and a resource ('存储身份对应的完整声明与 baseline'), making the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like document_apply or document_import because it is explicitly a read operation, though '存储身份' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as document_preview or content_read. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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