yuque_get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that three body formats exist and points to an API reference. It says nothing about authentication/permission needs, whether body content is paginated, or rate limits, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 terse fragments, front-loaded with the operation and key return variants. The trailing reference file pointer is a minor overhead but useful, so only slightly less than ideal.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned at a high level but omits usage context and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the schema already documents id, raw, page, and page_size. The description's 'Supports id or slug' merely restates the id field and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get document detail') and enumerates the three body representations it can return, which distinguishes it from list/batch siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from yuque_web_get_doc or yuque_batch_get_docs, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g. batch_get_docs, web_get_doc, get_doc_versions). 'Supports id or slug' is a parameter note, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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