get_header_footer_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the payload (text, PAGE/NUMPAGES fields, link status, configuration) and that it spans all sections, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether output is read-only safe.

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 front-loaded sentence enumerating what is returned, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the description adequately frames the read. However it omits any explanation of the section_index parameter, leaving a real gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions section_index, and its claim of covering 'seluruh section' (all sections) actively leaves the optional per-section filtering parameter unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (membaca/reads) and resource (Header/Footer of a .docx), plus the exact scope (all sections). An agent can immediately separate this getter from the sibling set_header_footer_docx writer without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the read counterpart to set_header_footer_docx. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against read_docx or get_page_setup_docx, and no stated prerequisite (e.g., file must exist).

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