read_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: duplicate names resolve to the newest document, a 'warning' is emitted naming other matches, and the warning must be relayed verbatim to the user. This goes beyond annotations and provides actionable handling instructions.

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; the first leads with the core action and the second is tightly scoped to an edge case and required user-facing action. No fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint, the description covers identifier formats and the key duplicate-name edge case with a specific instruction. It does not describe not-found behavior or return structure, but the operation is simple and the absence of an output schema lowers that requirement.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'document' parameter as accepting either a file name or uuid, which adds real meaning. However, 'project_id' is left unexplained beyond its title, so parameter semantics are only partially addressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one document') and clarifies the identifier formats accepted (file name or uuid). The duplicate-name warning behavior further distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_document or delete_document.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single document by name or uuid but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as pull_documents or list_documents. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so the agent must infer selection from context.

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