get_text_content

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral aspects such as error handling (e.g., if filePath is invalid), performance considerations, or whether it is a read-only operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could include a tiny bit more context without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain the return format (e.g., plain text, structured JSON). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain how to process the result. Also, no differentiation from siblings is provided. The description is inadequate for a tool with no output schema and many sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Optional path to limit text extraction scope' is identical in both). Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool extracts text content from a document or a specific node path. The verb 'Extract' and resource 'text content' are specific, and the scope (document vs node path) is mentioned. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_node_details which may also provide text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this tool is ideal for extracting all text, while get_node_details might be better for specific property access. There are no when-not-to-use conditions.

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