Check Text Consistency

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses that it returns all text contents, that deeper analysis is LLM-driven, and that the AI analysis may miss errors and does not replace human review. That caveat is exactly the kind of trust-calibration context annotations cannot express. It omits scope/pagination details, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the limitation note placed last where it belongs. The phrase 'for LLM-driven deeper analysis' is slightly meta but still earns its place by setting expectations about output.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing the return ('Returns all text contents') and the reliability caveat. What is missing is scope clarity — whether the scan covers the whole document or only the filtered artboard — which matters given the artboard_index filter.

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 both artboard_index and coordinate_system are fully documented in the schema, including the auto-detection rule and the pointer to get_document_info. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Analyze text frames') plus the concrete detection targets (dummy/placeholder text, katakana long vowel, fullwidth/halfwidth, wave dash/tilde), which is far more informative than the title. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like list_text_frames or get_text_frame_detail, which an agent might also consider for text inspection.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is a pre-handoff QA/consistency check on document text. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer this over list_text_frames or get_text_frame_detail, and no mention of prerequisites or scope (whole document vs. active artboard).

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