get_headers_footers

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

Without annotations, the description minimally indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose behavior when no document_handle is provided, permissions required, or edge cases like no headers/footers existing. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence of 8 words conveys the core functionality efficiently with no superfluous information.

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 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of headers/footers) but the output schema covers that. For a straightforward getter, it suffices.

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% and the description does not mention the single parameter (document_handle). It provides no guidance on its purpose, when to provide it, or the effect of the default empty string.

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' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (headers and footers), and the returned data (text content). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_header, edit_header_footer, and get_sections.

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., get_sections, edit_header_footer) or prerequisites like ensuring the document is open. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.

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