Extract text from a file

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

The description discloses the traversal behavior and the returned fields, and notes the default depth. It does not explain important behaviors such as whether hidden/off-canvas text is included, what 'copy' means, or how depth interacts with the optional ids parameter; annotations cover read-only but not these operation details.

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 compact sentence that packs the operation, output shape, and default depth without padding. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

It gives core behavior and output shape but lacks usage context: no mention of when to use this instead of get_nodes/find_nodes, no user prerequisites, and no discussion of traversal limits beyond the default depth. The 'copy' wording is ambiguous and there is no note about large files or excluded nodes, so an agent may misjudge cost and applicability.

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 describes file and ids well, but depth and limit are only defined by type bounds with no semantics. The description adds the default depth but does not clarify whether ids are required for partial extraction or how limit applies to traversal.

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 that the tool walks TEXT nodes and returns a structured copy with id, name, characters, and parentId. The title and description together make the core purpose understandableais. It does not explicitly contrast with get_nodes or find_nodes, but the focus on TEXT nodes gives enough distinction.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like get_nodes, find_nodes, or get_design_context_lite. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, so the agent is left to infer usage from the title and schema.

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