text_getFormatting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully enumerates the formatting fields returned per range, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, the shape/count of returned ranges, or error behavior, so the burden is only partially met.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the concrete output fields. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values; it does name the formatting attributes but not the structure (one entry per range? arrays? nesting?). For a 4-parameter read tool it is adequate on purpose and output content, but silent on the required storyIndex and on return shape, leaving clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: document_id and includeControlChars are described in the schema, but the two required parameters (storyIndex, paragraphIndex) are undocumented. The description's phrase 'in a paragraph' gives implicit context for paragraphIndex but adds nothing for storyIndex, so it only marginally compensates for the gap. Baseline 3 for the coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource: detailed formatting attributes (font, size, style, character style) per text style range within a paragraph. This clearly separates it from siblings like text_getContent (raw text) and text_getStories (story listing). It does not name an alternative, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for 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?

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given siblings such as text_getContent, text_getTextFrames, and grep_findFormat, an agent receives no help deciding when formatting inspection is the right call. Usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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