get_headers_footers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only operation without side effects. While it does not specify permissions or rate limits, for a simple retrieval tool, 'get' and 'text content' sufficiently convey non-destructive behavior. Lack of annotation contradiction.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, simple retrieval) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (headers/footers with text). It could specify that it returns all headers/footers in the document, but current wording is sufficient for most contexts.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 all headers and footers with their text content' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('headers and footers'), clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edit_header_footer' (which modifies) and 'get_headings' (which retrieves different content).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_header_footer for modifications, get_document_info for broader document info). There are no exclusions or context hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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