Read document page setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read (non-mutating) operation, and details return specifics: margins, page size in points, preset names (letter/legal/a4/tabloid), and orientation. It doesn't cover auth or error conditions, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise use case and sibling relationship. No redundant words, every clause earns its place.

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 tool with a small parameter set, the description sufficiently covers what it returns (specific formatting details) and how to use it. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing return components. Slight gap: no mention of error behavior or authentication, but not expected for this simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by framing the tool as applying to a doc or tab, which aligns with the 'tab' parameter, but it doesn't add parameter details 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'page setup', enumerating specific components (margins, page size, orientation) and noting it works on a doc or tab. It explicitly labels itself as the read counterpart to set_page_setup, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 identifies a specific use case ('mirror another document's layout onto a new doc') and names the complementary tool (set_page_setup). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use alternatives, the 'read counterpart' framing provides clear placement among siblings.

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