Analyze imported text in an InDesign frame to identify common issues before cleaning. Returns a list of detected problems.
Analyze imported text for common problems before cleaning. Shows what issues exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | No | Page index | |
| frameIndex | No | Text frame index to analyze | |
| useSelectedFrame | No | Analyze currently selected text frame |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what kinds of problems are detected, or what the output looks like.
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 communicate the core purpose and expected result without filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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?
The description is adequate for a focused analysis tool, but without an output schema or annotations it leaves important context unspecified, such as what constitutes 'common problems', whether the operation is read-only, and how the selection parameters affect the analysis. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the overall tool behavior remains thin.
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 adds no parameter-specific meaning, but all three parameters already have descriptions in the schema at 100% coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 action ('Analyze imported text') and a clear goal ('for common problems before cleaning'), which distinguishes it from cleaning tools like clean_imported_text. However, 'common problems' is vague and it does not explicitly differentiate from find_typography_issues, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'before cleaning' implies when the tool should be used, and the overall purpose suggests a pre-cleaning analysis step. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over find_typography_issues or analyze_embedded_objects, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.