get_document_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and return value, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side-effect-freeness, or any constraints on the returned text (e.g., whether it includes table or field content). 'Get' implies non-mutating behavior, but that is an inference, not a disclosure.

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 compact, well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and contains no filler. Each line earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description captures the essential purpose, argument provenance, and return value. However, it lacks any usage guidance, behavioral guarantees, or disambiguation from closely related text-retrieval siblings, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type by stating that doc_id is the 'Document ID from open_document,' which conveys provenance and a workflow dependency. It could specify format expectations, but for a single parameter this is a useful level of detail.

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 clearly states the action: 'Get all text content from the document.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, making the tool's core purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_page_text or get_paragraphs, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_page_text, get_paragraphs, or search_text. It only mentions that doc_id comes from open_document, which is a precondition rather than usage guidance. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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