get_text_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: line breaks are normalized to spaces. It also implies read-only extraction via the verb 'extract'. However, it does not explain potential error behavior when neither a selection nor a frameIndex exists, or what happens when both are provided.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action and input sources are front-loaded, and the normalization behavior and recommendation are stated in minimal words. 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?

For a simple extraction tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves some gaps. It does not explicitly state the return type beyond 'raw text content', nor does it clarify edge cases like truncation via maxLength or the relationship between pageIndex and frameIndex. These gaps are moderate for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 description adds little beyond the schema, though it does reinforce the normalizeSpaces behavior by mentioning line-break normalization. No additional parameter semantics or usage constraints are given for maxLength, pageIndex, or frameIndex.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('raw text content') and clearly identifies the possible input sources: selected text frame, insertion point, or specific frame. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_text_frames and get_selected_objects by focusing on actual text extraction rather than object listing or selection inspection.

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 'RECOMMENDED for text extraction' tag gives general guidance on when to use the tool, and the description explains it handles different selection types and specific frames. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when listing frame metadata or editing text instead.

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