get_index

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It details the output format and how literal dots are escaped, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor mention error handling or prerequisites. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 uses three concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the output structure and path escaping. No extraneous information is included, and it is well-organized.

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, output schema exists), the description covers the output format and a special case (dot escaping). However, it omits any discussion of errors (e.g., missing file, invalid path) or preconditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter file_path. The description does not explain what file_path represents, its expected format, or any constraints, leaving the agent with no additional guidance beyond the schema type.

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 clearly states the tool returns the section index of a Markdown file as a nested tree, specifying the structure of each node. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_section, get_section, etc. which operate on individual 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?

The description implies usage by mentioning the path field is used by all other tools, suggesting this tool is foundational for locating sections. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_section, and does not state when not to use it.

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