Get reading context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the selection is 'explicitly empty when nothing is selected', the image is 'ground truth for math' while 'the text layer may garble formulas', and the blue/red outline semantics are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line summary, then a structured enumeration of return contents. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences. Slightly long but justified by the breadth of returned data.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: document name/path, page, selection, underlines with quoted text/page/color/comment, text layer, and PNG outlining. An agent knows exactly what to expect from a call.

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 100%, so all three parameters (page, document_path, include_image) are already documented with defaults, including the fallback logic for page and document_path. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (reading context) and enumerates its contents: front document, current page, selection, pending underlines, text layer, and PNG. This implicitly separates it from the narrow siblings like get_pending_underlines and get_open_documents, though it never names them directly.

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 opening phrase 'Everything about what the reader is looking at, in one call' implies this is the comprehensive aggregator, which hints at when to prefer it over the narrower siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to use this vs. get_pending_underlines or get_open_documents, nor any exclusions.

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