get_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the response is capped/bounded, that fields are returned 'where available,' and that the response includes source URL, text ID, project, and transliteration/translation. It does not mention error behavior, auth needs, or how the excerpt boundary is determined, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by return summary and parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the main essentials: what is fetched, what is returned, and the bounded/capped nature of the response. It does not explain how to discover project identifiers or what happens when text_id is not found, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and sibling context.

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 for the parameter meanings. It provides brief definitions for both project and text_id, plus a concrete example for text_id ('P295625'). However, project is only called an 'ORACC project identifier' without examples or a pointer to list_projects, and no format constraints are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a bounded excerpt of an ORACC text edition (CDL structure).' It also lists return fields, making the function's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the contrast with list_projects, search_project, etc., is inferable from the content.

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 says what the tool returns and that the response is capped, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over list_project_texts, search_project, or other siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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