find_typography_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traitsepth. It only says the tool analyzes text and gives examples, but does not state whether it mutates content, what its output format is, how selection vs frame vs page scoping works, or whether it is read-only. The 'analyze' wording implies non-destructive behavior but leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler and useful examples. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the primary use case, but as written it is concise and directly communicates the tool's core function.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: what the analysis returns, whether it modifies the document, how to scope the analysis, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. The schema helps with parameter names but not with the overall call flow or result interpretation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameters are each described minimally ('Page index', 'Text frame index to analyze', 'Analyze currently selected text frame'), and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. It also does not explain how pageIndex, frameIndex, and useSelectedFrame interact or take precedence.

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 tool's function: analyze text for common typography issues, with concrete examples like wrong spaces in dates, straight quotes, and double spaces. This distinguishes it from fix_typography_in_selection by implying detection rather than correction, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the overlapping sibling analyze_text_problems.

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 such as fix_typography_in_selection, clean_imported_text, or analyze_text_problems. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or recommended workflow context.

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