get_document_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., metadata, structure, content), whether it's read-only, or any performance or permission considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and a parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter structure, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding in a context with many sibling tools.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'path', adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it only states 'Path to the document file' without clarifying format (e.g., absolute/relative, file extensions) or constraints, providing basic but incomplete compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a LibreOffice document', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_statistics' or 'read_document_text', which appear to serve similar informational purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_document_statistics' and 'read_document_text' available, the description lacks any indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it should be preferred over others.

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