get_item_fulltext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool returns text only if Zotero has indexed the attachment, and that the key type matters. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or what happens when text is unavailable (e.g., empty result vs. error). This is a minor gap, but the main 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 sentences, each earning its place. It starts with a clear purpose, then provides key-related guidance, and ends with a critical limitation. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the structure front-loads the most important 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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an existing output schema (which explains return values). The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what key to use, and a key limitation. It could mention error behavior when text isn't indexed, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers both parameters with helpful descriptions (e.g., max_chars truncation). The description adds critical semantic context beyond the schema for the 'key' parameter by specifying it must be an attachment item key, not its parent. This is a valuable addition, though it does not add extra info for max_chars beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: 'Get the indexed full text of an attachment (PDF, snapshot, etc.)'. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource (full text of an attachment) make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_item (metadata) and get_item_children (finding attachment keys) by explicitly narrowing the scope to full text 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 provides explicit usage guidance: the key must be an attachment item key, not the parent, and it directs users to get_item_children to find attachment keys. It also notes the indexing requirement, clarifying when the tool will be useful. This goes beyond simple 'when to use' by naming a specific alternative and stating a precondition.

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