get_visual_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly declares READ-ONLY, enumerates the return payload (type, position, vcObjects, objects, field bindings), and notes the resolution behavior. It stops short of describing error cases or ambiguities (e.g., duplicate displayName), so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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 dense with useful details: purpose, returns, workflow, and parameter resolution. Each sentence earns its place, though the enumeration of return fields could be tighter. It is front-loaded with the key action and read-only warning.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return structure (decoded vcObjects/objects with property:value examples). It also places the tool in a workflow (inspect before set_visual_format). It lacks edge-case error handling or deeper explanation of 'decoded, simplified', but for a read tool this is reasonably complete.

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 already covers page and visual with 'name or displayName' (67% coverage). The description reinforces this but does not add deeper semantics for reportSessionId or go beyond what the schema states. For a 3-param tool with decent schema coverage, baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read the DECODED, simplified current formatting of one visual (READ-ONLY)'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_visual_format (a setter) and get_visual_schema (schema-focused), leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to inspect before set_visual_format', giving a concrete workflow context. Also clarifies that page/visual resolve by name or displayName, which is a practical usage hint. While no exclusions are listed, the guidance is clear and actionable for a read-only inspection tool.

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