Get Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful detail about what is returned (first character's fields, ranges for differing styled parts), but does not discuss return format or how ranges are structured. It goes beyond the annotations but not richly.

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 dense sentence with parenthetical clarifications, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient though the long list of style fields may be terse for some agents.

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?

With no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description does substantial work by naming returned properties and the ranges concept. It omits error conditions and exact range structure, leaving a small gap for a read tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the time parameter ('at time, default: now') and implies layer_id identifies the layer, partially compensating for the empty schema descriptions. No detail on layer_id format or time semantics beyond 'now', but the key parameters are addressed.

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 (Read) and resource (a text layer's content and styling), then enumerates exactly which style attributes are returned. An agent can distinguish this read tool from sibling setters like set_text or get_layer without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by noting the default time ('now') and that ranges capture differing parts, but it never states when to use this rather than get_layer or list_properties, nor any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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