get_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Retrieve' clearly marks this as a read-only operation, and examples cover reference styles, but it doesn't disclose response format, error behavior, or default selection beyond schema-covered defaults.

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 tight sentences, with the action and examples first and the use-case statement second. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic invocation. It could mention response shape or version distinction, but the essentials are 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 baseline is 3. The description adds concrete reference examples including a range ('Exodus 20:2-6') and a daf segment ('Shabbat 2b:10'), going beyond the schema's simpler examples and clarifying tref syntax.

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 action (retrieve) on a specific resource (text passage from Sefaria) with a clear method (by reference). 'Primary way to get text content for citations and study' signals main use, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a specific reference and need text content. However, it doesn't mention when to avoid this tool or direct to alternatives like get_text_v1 or search, leaving the choice partially to inference.

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