Read computed style at a text anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and performs well: it explains the inherited-resolved nature, lists exact return fields for paragraph and text styles, and conveys the diagnostic intent. Minor gap: it doesn't mention behavior when target_string is not unique or not found, but overall it's transparent about what the tool computes and returns.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded with the main action, then return details, then a practical use case with an example. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy or filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it details the return shape, explains inheritance semantics, and gives a real-world diagnostic scenario with a specific fix. It sufficiently covers the tool's complexity and use case context.

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 high (75%) with target_string already documented as 'quote a unique slice from read_doc'. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond restating 'unique text snippet' and doesn't elaborate on documentId, tab, or account. Thus it meets the baseline but adds little 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 it reads the effective (inherited-resolved) style at a unique text snippet and distinguishes itself from read_doc by noting markdown can't express these styles, while also positioning as the read counterpart to set_style. The verb and resource are specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 tells when to use the tool: to diagnose things markdown hides, and gives a concrete example (unexpected gap is spacing, not blank line). It also points to set_style for fixing and contrasts with edit_doc, providing clear alternative guidance.

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