Get Text Content

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

The description communicates that this is a read operation ('Read'), which is useful given no annotations, but it does not disclose behavior on invalid node IDs, whether style segments are returned inline, or any edge cases like non-text nodes.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence stating the action and resource with zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and result. Without an output schema, it could briefly explain the structure of style segments, but the level of detail is sufficient for basic usage.

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 already describes nodeId as 'Text node ID' at 100% coverage, and the description adds no extra parameter detail beyond confirming it targets a text node, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and specifies the resource: text content and style segments from a text node, which clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_text (write) and set_text_range_style (style modification). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_node_properties, which could also return text-related data.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The getter semantics imply it is for retrieving text from a node, but the description does not state when to choose this over get_node_properties or get_cell_content.

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