scan_text_nodes

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

Beyond readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that traversal is by subtree, that it returns per-node text and font attributes, and that the default scope is the current page. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations without needing to infer from the schema.

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 short sentences; first states the core function, second explains scoping. No redundant words or filler.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what it returns, how to scope, and the default behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 root is fully described in the schema ('Node id to scope the scan; omit for the current page'), and the tool description repeats this information almost verbatim. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns all TEXT nodes within a subtree, with specific properties (characters/fontSize/fontName). This distinguishes it from generic node scanners like scan_nodes_by_types and from get_node, making its 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 provides clear context: you use this to scan text nodes in a subtree, with root scoping and default to current page. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the specialized function makes when-to-use evident. Lacks explicit exclusions, but context is solid.

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