get_paragraph

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the operation as read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not mention what happens if the paraId is invalid or missing, nor any potential error conditions or return format beyond what an output schema might provide.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an Args section. No unnecessary words. The purpose and parameter are presented clearly and efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter details. It does not describe the output, but that is compensated by the output schema. A slight gap is the lack of guidance on invalid IDs, but overall adequate.

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 only defines para_id as a string, but the description adds critical context: it specifies the format ('8-character hex', e.g., '1A2B3C4D'). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 retrieves the full text and style of a specific paragraph identified by paraId. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (paragraph by paraId), distinguishing it from siblings like get_headers_footers or get_headings which retrieve different 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_text or get_headings. It only explains how to use it (provide a valid paraId) but does not address prerequisites, fallback scenarios, or exclusions.

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