get_page_structure

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states what the tool does. It fails to mention potential issues like invalid URLs, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise, with three clear sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear output) and the existence of an output schema (inferred), the description covers the core functionality. However, it could be more complete by specifying what happens with non-documentation pages or error conditions.

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 compensates by adding context: 'The URL of the documentation page' clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's bare 'url' field. It adds meaningful, though basic, guidance.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Extracts') and resource ('heading structure and table of contents'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'extract_code_examples' by focusing specifically on page organization.

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 use when understanding page organization, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_documentation_links or read_web_documentation. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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