get_document_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that pagination is involved, plus the full-text-vs-section behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details such as how pagination terminates, what page_size represents, what happens for missing sections, and whether only the readable text is returned.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the primary behavior and includes the most important scope distinction. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The schema and output schema provide some structural context, but the description remains thin for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations. It gives a reasonable high-level orientation, but does not cover pagination mechanics, parameter usage, or alternative tool selection, so it is not fully complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it does not mention kb, doc_id, page, or page_size explicitly. It hints at the section parameter ('a single section') and at pagination generally, but it does not clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or constraints enough to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 ('reading'), the resource ('text of a document'), and a key scope distinction ('full text or a single section'). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_document tool.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document or search_chunks. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer another sibling, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection.

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