walk_and_scan_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions walking and collecting, which implies a read operation, but does not discuss performance implications, error handling, return format, or side effects. Minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action, efficient and easy to parse.

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 description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but missing details about return value (e.g., list of text node IDs or content), behavior on invalid nodes, and handling of nested instances. Leaves some gaps.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'nodeId'. The description adds context about library instance sublayers, providing some value beyond the schema, but is not essential.

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?

Description clearly states the tool walks a node subtree and collects text nodes, with specific mention of library instance sublayers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scan_text_nodes', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 for library instance sublayers, providing some context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_text_nodes' or 'walk_and_replace_text'.

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