ilias_page_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful facts that output is paginated via offset/next_offset, which is beyond what annotations convey, but says nothing about truncation via max_chars or what links look like when included.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identification and followed by usage and pagination guidance. Tight and free of filler, though the parenthetical example list slightly dilutes the lead sentence.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with a required 'target' parameter and three optional parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about input formats—the most consequential omission for a tool the agent will reach for as a fallback.

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 full burden, yet it only mentions offset pagination. It never explains what 'target' accepts (URL, ref ID, object id?), what max_chars does when exceeded, or what include_links changes. It also references 'next_offset', which is not an input parameter but a return field, muddying the signal.

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 ('Readable text') and resource ('any ILIAS page') with three illustrative examples of page types. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ilias_read_file, which is the closest overlap, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use when a structured tool misses something' is a genuine fallback cue, but it is vague about which structured siblings it backstops and under what conditions the fallback is preferable. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative.

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