get_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It makes the read-only nature explicit ('Return... full plain text') but does not disclose requirements like whether the document must be open, permission needs, or error behavior. The lack of contradiction keeps it from being lower.

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?

One tightly worded sentence that leads with the action, specifies the resource and output shape, and contains no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core behavior and return shape, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves context like document-state requirements and failure modes unstated. It is minimally complete for simple use but not fully self-sufficient.

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% and the description adds no direct explanation of doc_id beyond referencing a Writer document. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the gap is minor, but the description still does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('Writer document'), and the output shape ('as {text}'). It does not explicitly call out sibling tools, but 'full plain text' sets it apart from slide-level tools like read_slide.

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 get_text versus alternatives such as read_slide, document_info, or find_and_replace. The expected invocation context is left implied rather than stated.

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