get_apic_toc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns the full document structure with sections and topics, which is helpful, but it does not disclose the output format, potential size of the TOC, or how the optional section filter affects the result.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the description of what is shown adds useful detail without bloat.

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 simple read-only tool with zero required parameters and one self-explanatory optional parameter, the description gives enough context for an agent to call it appropriately. The only minor gap is lack of detail about the exact return structure, but this is low risk for a TOC retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 input schema already describes the single optional section parameter with examples, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema can handle parameter understanding on its own.

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 and resource: getting the table of contents for IBM API Connect 12.1.0 documentation. It also clarifies what the tool returns ('full document structure with sections and topics'), which separates it from the sibling search and read tools.

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 this tool is for exploring the document overview rather than searching or reading specific content, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over search_apic_docs or read_apic_doc. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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