Get document text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (extract plain text) and adds a behavioral nuance about reading the entire document for characters. No destructive behavior or contradictions are present, though it lacks detail on authentication or rate limits.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary purpose and context, and the second provides a critical behavioral guideline. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, and a behavioral nuance. It does not explicitly state the output format (likely plain text), but that is reasonably inferred from 'extract plain text'.

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 the qualifier 'documents-relative path' for the relPath parameter, which provides some context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., leading slash, file extension) or give an example.

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 (extract/read) and resource (document text) and specifies the context (UNTRACKED document). It distinguishes from siblings like record_document_content by implying this is the read step before recording. The additional detail about reading the whole document for character identification further clarifies the purpose.

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 provides clear context: read an untracked document and then record its content. It also gives a specific guideline about reading the whole document for character identification. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools.

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