get_shape_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('Get') and lists the types of properties returned, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, or behavior when the shape is missing. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple fetch operation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates relevant attribute categories. No redundant words or fluff.

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 compensates by listing the kinds of attributes returned (colors, text properties, fonts, dimensions, effects). It does not fully specify the response structure, but for a property-getter, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to anticipate the return. Sibling tools clarify the read-only nature.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (fileId, pageId, shapeId), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond implying shapeId identifies the specific shape, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves detailed properties of a specific shape, enumerating categories like colors, text properties, fonts, dimensions, and effects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_shapes (listing shapes) and query_shapes (searching).

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 implies use when you need exhaustive attributes of a single shape, which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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