Get Text Frame Detail

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value with the version-dependent caveat that paragraph leading/autoLeading may return 0 in some ExtendScript versions. It also discloses the unit convention for kerning values (1/1000 em), which prevents misreading the output.

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 the core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of returned sections and two caveats; no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense, but every clause (attribute groups, unit convention, version caveat) conveys information an agent needs.

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 usefully pre-describes the return shape (runs, kerning pairs, paragraph attributes, cssHints) and flags a known data-quality caveat. It leaves minor gaps, such as how to source the uuid and what happens on a missing/invalid frame, but is largely sufficient for a read-only two-parameter tool.

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% and the coordinate_system enum is fully explained inline, including its default auto-detection rule, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about uuid or coordinate_system; the '1/1000 em' note describes returned data rather than an input. 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 verb and resource ('Get detailed text frame attributes') and enumerates the payload (per-character runs, kerning pairs, paragraph attributes, cssHints), which separates it from the coarse-grained list_text_frames sibling by granularity. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-detail split.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for obtaining the uuid, and no routing to alternatives such as list_text_frames or check_text_consistency. The only operative instruction ('Call get_document_info to check which system is active') lives in the schema, not the description.

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