get_document_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'extract' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how large documents are handled, what format the text is returned in, or whether there are any limitations on document size or complexity. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the extracted text is returned in, whether formatting is preserved, how errors are handled, or any limitations. Given the complexity of document processing and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't add any information about the 'filename' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name. The baseline for a single parameter with no schema description would be higher, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining what format the filename should be in, whether it needs a path, or what document types are supported.

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 action ('Extract all text') and resource ('from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paragraph_text_from_document' or 'find_text_in_document', which offer related text extraction capabilities with different scopes or methods.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple text-related sibling tools (get_paragraph_text_from_document, find_text_in_document, get_document_info), the description offers no context about when this comprehensive extraction is preferred over more targeted approaches.

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