insert_numbered_list_near_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('Insert') and parameters but lacks behavioral details such as whether this modifies the document in place, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if target text isn't found), or what the output looks like. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameters, and the second lists all args with brief explanations. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., avoiding 'Args:' in the description text).

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. It's complete enough for basic usage but misses details like error handling or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully. It clearly explains all 6 parameters: 'filename' (the document), 'target_text' or 'target_paragraph_index' (how to locate the paragraph), 'list_items' (content), 'position' (placement), and 'bullet_type' (formatting). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Insert a bulleted or numbered list'), the resource ('target paragraph'), and the scope ('before or after'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' by focusing specifically on lists with formatting options.

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 by mentioning 'Specify by text or paragraph index' and the positional options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_paragraph' for plain text or other list-insertion tools if they existed. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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