Get Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing that local adapters return bounded text with provenance while deferred/remote-only sources return an explicit status, revealing behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not detail error semantics or size limits beyond 'bounded', but for a read-style retrieval tool this is meaningful disclosure.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional behavior kept in a compact second sentence. No filler, and each clause earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the adapter distinction adds useful context. However, with no annotations, one undocumented required parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding when and how to call 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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, and the description only clarifies that 'reference' is an identifier; the 'corpus' parameter is left completely unexplained in terms of name, format, or relationship to reference. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient to safely construct the two required arguments.

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 opening sentence uses the verb 'Retrieve' with a specific object ('text content') and a retrieval key ('reference identifier'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like search_corpus and get_text_metadata, but it does not explicitly call out those differences, so not 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_text over search_corpus or get_text_metadata, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The adapter-dependent behavior (local vs deferred/remote-only) is stated, but it does not tell the agent which tool to select in a given scenario.

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