Get Item Fulltext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it returns 'plain text' that is 'bounded' by max_chars, and it 'never exposes a server-local temporary path'—a security-relevant detail. It also clarifies the source (PDF or full-text index) and the distinction of item_key being the parent item. This is valuable contextual behavior.

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 well-structured: two introductory sentences (purpose and a key differentiator), followed by a clearly formatted Args list. No filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults. Every sentence contributes purpose, usage guidance, or parameter semantics.

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 read-only tool with three parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, differentiation from a sibling, parameter semantics, and a behavioral note about non-exposure of temporary paths. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so the description does not need to explain it. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description carries full responsibility. It explains all three parameters: item_key as 'the parent item, not the attachment', attachment_key as optional for multiple PDFs, and max_chars with a numeric range '1,000-200,000'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults, properly compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get bounded plain text from a paper's PDF or Zotero full-text index.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling download_pdf by stating 'this returns readable text directly and never exposes a server-local temporary path.' The verb 'Get' plus the resource and the explicit contrast make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names an alternative (download_pdf) and explains the key difference in output format and path exposure, which guides tool selection. However, it does not enumerate other alternatives like search_fulltext or list_attachments, nor does it state explicit 'when not to use' conditions beyond the implicit contrast. This is clear context but not exhaustive.

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