get_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure in detail (3 levels with content descriptions). It does not mention read-only or mutation behavior, but given the nature of a TOC retrieval, the behavioral traits are mostly inferred.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the structure using arrows and specific details. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description explains the output structure sufficiently. It covers the three levels and their contents, though it could slightly benefit from mentioning usage context or response format.

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, so the description need not add parameter info. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional semantics are required.

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 that the tool provides a table of contents with 3 levels (topic areas, schede, sections), specifying details like page ranges, exercise counts, completion checkmark, and kind. It distinguishes from siblings (get_page, list_exercises, get_exercise) by focusing on hierarchical structure.

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 for navigating the structure before fetching specific pages or exercises, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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