get_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns shape attributes, which is useful, but it does not mention behavior such as ordering of results, pagination/limits, the meaning of coordinate units, or what happens on an invalid pageIndex. It is adequate but not rich, giving a 3.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the returned attributes. There is no filler, no redundancy, and every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates what is returned (IDs, positions, sizes, text content), which is the key contextual gap for a read tool. It is nearly complete for the agent's call-time needs; the only omissions are minor behavioral details like result ordering, which fall under behavioral transparency and are not critical for invoking correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single pageIndex parameter is already fully documented in the schema as a 0-based page index with a default of the first page. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither compounds nor detracts.

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 (List) with a clear resource (all shapes on a page) and enumerates exactly what is returned (IDs, positions, sizes, text content). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools like add_shape, set_shape_text, move_shape, and delete_shape, which modify shapes rather than read them.

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 versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are named. While get_pages and the shape-mutating tools are functionally distinct, the description does not tell the agent anything about context—such as calling this before move_shape/resize_shape to obtain coordinates, or that it is the read complement to the shape-edit operations.

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