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 behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns full text, works only on born-digital PDFs, and returns an empty result for scanned/image-only PDFs. It could also mention what happens when no PDF is attached, but the key behaviors are disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, the use case is stated, and the important limitation is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the intended use, and a key edge case. The main missing context is how to source document_id and what happens if the document has no attached PDF, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, and the description does not explain the document_id parameter or indicate how to obtain it (e.g., via mendeley_search_library or mendeley_list_documents). The only indirect hint is 'library document,' which is insufficient compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific action—extracting and returning the full text of the PDF attached to a library document—and explains its purpose for reading or analyzing papers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mendeley_get_file_content, but the 'full text of the PDF' and 'model can read the paper's contents' framing provides enough functional differentiation.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this when asked to read, summarize, or answer questions about a paper.' It also provides a capability boundary for scanned/image-only PDFs, though it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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