get_texts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful scope ('All texts of the drawing') and enumerates returned attributes, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, coordinate system, units, or whether all pages/views are included. The getter nature makes this a minor gap, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core scope and includes the key returned fields without any wasted words.

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?

For a no-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the entity type and the fields an agent can expect. It does not explain coordinate systems or units, but those are likely covered by the output schema and are not needed to select or invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema already covers the parameter set completely.

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 identifies the resource (all text entities in the drawing) and the data returned (position, height, layer, block). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_objects and get_layers because it specifically targets texts, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name for the action.

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 like get_objects or get_selected_objects. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions described, so the agent must infer usage from the name and content list alone.

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