docx.headers_footers_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get header/footer' with no explanation of whether this is a read-only operation, what the return value contains, how it interacts with the current document state, or any potential side effects. This is severely lacking and provides almost no transparency beyond the trivial action.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and does not waste words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than being appropriately concise; still, as a brevity measure, it is efficient. A 4 reflects that it is short but not unnecessarily verbose.

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 a simple getter with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Yet the description is incomplete: it does not explain what is returned (e.g., the header/footer's text, XML, or pointer), how it is selected, or how it relates to the document state. Given the absence of structured metadata, the description should provide more context, but it offers almost none, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. It does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but that is not required here.

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 'Get header/footer' is overly vague. It doesn't specify which header/footer (first page, default, section-specific), what object is returned (content, XML, metadata), or how it differs from the sibling tool docx.headers_footers_list, which likely enumerates all headers/footers. This is not a tautology but gives insufficient detail to distinguish it from alternatives.

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 docx.headers_footers_list or docx.headers_footers_set. There is also no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or the context in which this tool is appropriate. The description is purely a bare action statement with no usage direction.

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