doc_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read operation ('Lê') and adds important semantic context: the snapshot is immutable and the tool does not follow the document pointer. This goes beyond a generic 'get' description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and distinguishing semantics well. The only notable gap is the undocumented purpose of 'agent_id', but since it is optional and has a default, the tool remains callable.

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 must compensate. It adds useful meaning to the required 'hash' parameter by explaining that a unique prefix is acceptable. However, the optional 'agent_id' parameter remains completely unexplained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 (Lê) and resource (snapshot imutável) with a clear addressing method (hash or unique prefix). It also distinguishes itself from sibling document tools by explicitly noting it does not follow the document pointer.

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 the tool should be used when the caller has a hash or unique prefix and wants an immutable snapshot, and it tells the agent this is not for following the current document pointer. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like doc_read or state when to prefer them.

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