wps_word_get_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that headings are extracted with their levels and text, but omits crucial behavioral details: read-only nature, required document state, behavior when no headings exist, performance implications, or error conditions. The description is too sparse for a tool with zero 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the extraction purpose and scope with zero wasted words. It earns its place as a concise description for a simple tool.

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 description lacks context around prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), output format (no output schema), and edge cases (no headings). For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify these points to prevent agent confusion, especially given the large sibling set.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds useful context about what is extracted (heading style paragraphs only), which goes beyond the empty 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 verb ('extract') and resource ('document outline') and specifies it retrieves the level and text of all heading style paragraphs. This distinguishes it from siblings like wps_word_read (full content) and wps_word_get_paragraphs (all paragraphs).

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 usage when needing the document's structural outline rather than full content, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., 'requires an open document'), or when not to use this tool. With many sibling tools, some directive would be helpful.

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