table_of_contents

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions extraction of headings with links but omits details about tabs, quiet mode, account requirements, or error states. The behavior for missing headings or unsupported document types is unspecified.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool has 6 parameters, a more structured description (e.g., listing key options) would improve usability without adding much length.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, error handling, or parameter interactions. A more complete description is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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 coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters described). The description does not add meaning to any parameters beyond the schema. Key parameters like 'tab', 'quiet', 'no_links', and 'max_depth' lack explanation of their effect on the extraction.

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 action ('Extract'), the target resource ('document heading outline'), and the output ('deep links'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'read_document' or 'document_info' by specifying a structured heading extraction with links.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_document' or 'document_info'. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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