get_paragraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'full text and style' but does not mention the optional document_handle parameter or any prerequisites (e.g., document state, auth needs). It does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but lacks depth on behavioral traits like error handling or data limits.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter note is clear but could be more compact by integrating into the main sentence. It wastes no words, though it could add missing info without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain the document_handle parameter and lacks context about error conditions or usage within a document workflow. For a simple retrieval tool, it's minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The description only explains the para_id parameter (example format), but entirely omits the document_handle parameter, leaving its purpose and usage unclear. This is a significant gap for the agent.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full text and style of a specific paragraph') with the unique identifier (paraId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paragraph_format (returns only format) and get_runs (returns runs), making the tool's specific 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 implies usage when one needs the full text and style of a paragraph by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_paragraph_format, get_runs, or get_body_text. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., document must be open).

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