get_body_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: inclusion of tracked insertions, exclusion of deletions, inclusion of hyperlink text, paragraph joining with newlines, and separate footnote returns. This is transparent for a read-only tool, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 very concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (track changes, hyperlinks, footnotes) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains accepted view, joint handling, and separate footnotes. It could mention what happens with empty or invalid handles, but overall it covers the essential 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?

The single parameter 'document_handle' has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide or its format. This is a critical gap.

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 the tool returns the full accepted-view text of the document, specifying that it includes w:ins text, excludes w:del text, and includes hyperlink runs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_footnotes and get_bookmarked_text.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or name any sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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