ruddur_get_heading

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the authorization requirement (scope: content.read) and the 'creator-owned' restriction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error responses, whether archived headings are included, or the exact return format, keeping this at a baseline acceptable level given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value—verb, resource, ownership scope, and auth scope. No wasted language.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool, the description is nearly complete. It names the resource and required scope. While there is no output schema or explicit return-value description, the tool name and 'Get' imply the return of a Heading object. Minor missing details about error handling or response shape prevent a perfect score.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description merely restates 'by id' without adding syntax, formats, or edge cases. This matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Heading'), and scope ('creator-owned', 'by id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_headings (multiple) and search_headings (search criteria).

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single heading by its ID. It mentions the required scope (content.read), which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list/search or provide exclusionary guidance, though the 'by id' phrasing makes the intended use obvious.

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