Word Headings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'List' does signal a non-destructive read and it discloses the returned fields (level, page). It says nothing about which document is read when path is omitted, whether results are truncated, or what happens on an invalid path, so the read-safety and edge-case profile remains implicit.

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 with zero filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and scoping detail noted elsewhere; it is efficient rather than merely terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, but two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no statement of which document is targeted leave an agent unable to call this confidently. The 'every heading' vs. max_level=3 mismatch further undermines completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does not: 'path' is never explained (file path vs. active document default of null). Worse, 'List every heading' conflicts with the max_level default of 3, which actually excludes levels 4+, so the description misleads about default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every heading') and adds what each entry carries (outline level and start page). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling word_outline, so an agent must guess which of the two to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of word_outline, word_page_text, or word_find_page, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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