get_textbox_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the operation read-only, discloses the full scope of what is read, lists the reported fields, and notes the 'where determinable' limitation on anchoring paragraph indices. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond any structured metadata.

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?

Four focused sentences cover scope, output fields, alternative routing, and read-only status. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler, and the most important usage distinction 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is read, where it is read from, what each result contains, why this tool is preferable for this use case, and that it is read-only. The only slight gap is file_path documentation, but that is minor against the overall completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain the file_path parameter at all. While file_path is a common and somewhat self-explanatory parameter, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading text from every text box / shape text frame across body, headers, and footers, covering both modern and legacy VML. It clearly differentiates itself from get_text by explaining exactly why get_text is unsuitable for box content.

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?

It explicitly tells agents to use this tool instead of get_text for box content, explains the failure mode of the generic tool, and names set_textbox_text as the complementary write tool that shares the box_index address. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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