list_footnotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Return existing footnotes' does disclose the core behavioral trait — a read-only list operation with a defined return shape. However, nothing is said about empty-result behavior, invalid or missing path handling, ordering, or whether the result is scoped to the document at the given path.

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 six-word sentence with zero filler; the action and return format are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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 simple (one string parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. The core purpose is stated, but the meaning of the required 'path' parameter is entirely undocumented and no usage guidance is provided, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 never mentions the required 'path' parameter, so nothing compensates for the schema gap. An agent must guess whether 'path' refers to a document path, workspace location, or something else, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('existing footnotes') plus the output shape ({id, text}), which clearly signals a read/list operation. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling add_footnote via the word 'existing', but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

Usage context is only implied: if an agent needs existing footnotes, this tool returns them. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusion, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sources or document_outline, leaving the selection reasoning to inference.

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