docx.headers_footers_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is clear enough at a basic level. However, the description does not disclose what exactly the list contains (e.g., names, paths, content snippets) or how the result is structured.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It fully front-loads the core purpose and avoids any redundant phrasing.

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 with one parameter and no nested objects, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no return-value note, an agent must infer what 'list headers and footers' returns. Slightly more detail would make this complete.

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 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The sole parameter docId is adequately documented in the schema as 'Document ID'. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, which is fine given the full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'List headers and footers'. This clearly identifies the tool's operation and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like docx.images_list and docx.comments_list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred conditions stated, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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