Read a paragraph's full text and formatting—style, alignment, font name, size, bold, italic, and color—by index to inspect or verify document content.
Read one paragraph in full: text, style, alignment and font properties (name, size, bold, italic, color).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Zero-based paragraph index. | |
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' makes the non-mutating nature clear and the listed fields give useful output context, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and whether missing paragraphs return null or throw.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the returned fields. There is no wasted wording.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: text, style, alignment, and font properties. It could be more complete by mentioning the optional documentId fallback or error cases, but the core behavior is covered.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read one paragraph in full.' The phrase 'one paragraph' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling read_paragraphs, but does not name the alternative explicitly.
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 versus read_paragraphs, read_deck_text, or inspect_document. The intended use is inferable from 'one paragraph' and the required index parameter, but the description provides no explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.