get_fulltext

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

The description implies read-only behavior ('Get') and details the return fields (content, indexedPages, totalPages). With no annotations, this provides adequate behavioral context for a simple retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise with three short lines: purpose, args, returns. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, what input is needed, and what output to expect.

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 only parameter 'key' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by stating it must be an attachment key, not a top-level item, adding crucial semantic meaning.

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 specific action: 'Get full-text content of a Zotero attachment.' It uses a strong verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_item' (metadata) and 'search' (query-based).

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 explicitly says the key must be an attachment item, not a top-level item, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name specific alternatives but implies correct usage.

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