View Structured Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool opens a view inside the MCP host and that the view lacks page images/bbox overlays. However, it does not mention that several parameters (facet, parse_facet, parse_if_missing) are deprecated no-ops, nor does it clarify the relationship to inspect_html mentioned in the schema. This is a notable transparency gap.

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 composed of two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters, 3 of which are deprecated no-ops, and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and usage alternatives but does not address the deprecated parameters or the tool's relationship to inspect_html (referenced in the schema). The absence of an output schema also means the description should clarify what the view contains, which it partially does ('without page images or bbox overlays'). Overall, it is adequate but has 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the use of document_id and selector through the 'reading extracted document content as HTML' phrase. The schema already documents all parameters, so the description adds little.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('parsed structured text/HTML view'), and clearly states the scope: reading extracted document content as HTML without page images or bbox overlays. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly directing visual source pages to view_pdf/review_extraction.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for reading extracted document content as HTML without page images or bbox overlays') and an explicit alternative ('use view_pdf/review_extraction for visual source pages'). This clearly positions the tool against its siblings.

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