get_paragraphs

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

The description states it returns a list of paragraphs with text and index, which is basic behavioral info. However, with no annotations, it doesn't explicitly disclose side effects (none implied), error conditions, or scope like whether it covers the entire document. It's neutral but not comprehensive.

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 clean docstring with Args and Returns sections, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning without verbosity.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple reader, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks usage differentiation relative to siblings and doesn't mention edge cases, but it's adequate for basic invocation.

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?

The description fully explains all three parameters, clarifying doc_id as from open_document, start as the starting index, and limit as the maximum return count. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well done.

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 tool retrieves paragraphs from a document, specifying the action and resource. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_document_text or get_page_text, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate them, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond referencing open_document, so an agent has no explicit direction on selecting this over similar text-retrieval tools.

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