text_getContent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states it is non-destructive, does not describe what 'content' includes (paragraphs, special characters, formatting), and says nothing about permissions or the timeout behavior, despite a timeout parameter existing.

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 short sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place beyond restating the 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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what content is returned and how the frame is addressed. It omits all of this, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 60%; timeout, document_id, and includeControlChars are documented in the schema, but pageIndex and frameIndex are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the agent gets no help for the two required, undocumented addressing parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (content from a text frame), which is clearer than the bare name. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as text_getStories, text_getTextFrames, or text_getFormatting, all of which also read 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus text_getStories (story-level text) or text_getTextFrames. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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