get_fulltext

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it notes that the tool raises an error when no indexed full text exists, limiting its applicability to specific attachment types. The read-only nature is already in annotations but is repeated harmlessly; the added error condition and index-dependency are valuable transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause contributes information: the fetch target, the attachment key source, the indexing prerequisite, and the error behavior. No fluff.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what is fetched, the error condition, and where to obtain keys. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no description for the attachment_key parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that the key refers to an attachment and directing the user to list_attachments for valid keys. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema field.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the exact resource: 'Zotero's extracted full-text content and indexing progress for an attachment.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_attachments and explicitly excluding images from the scope of meaningful use.

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 clearly states when the tool is appropriate ('Only meaningful for attachments Zotero has indexed -- PDFs/text files with extracted text') and when it will fail ('raises an error if there's no indexed full text'). It also points the user to list_attachments for obtaining valid keys, providing practical context for use.

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