Get attachment full text / passages (read-only)

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including handling of page approximations, precise_pages, truncation behavior, and that it's cloud full text. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers all modes and edge cases. While slightly long, every sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (passages with locators, char offsets, page, section) and covers all input combinations. It also notes limitations like page approximation and truncation, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite high schema coverage (75%), the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the interplay of query, page_range, and default behavior; defines max_chars as best-effort (a single passage never split); and details page approximation. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve an item's PDF text for grounding.' It distinguishes between different input modes (query, page_range, or neither) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning when to use it after zotero_search_items / zotero_semantic_search.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to cite a claim with a page after finding an item via zotero_search_items / zotero_semantic_search.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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