ruddur_list_headings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the required OAuth scope and the creator-owned scoping constraint, but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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?

Two short sentences convey the essential information: the tool's action and a required authorization scope. There is no redundant wording, and the minor double-space typo does not detract from the clarity.

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?

As a list operation with no output schema, the description would benefit from mentioning what fields are returned or pagination support. The generic body/query schema suggests flexibility but does not explain tool-specific behavior, leaving moderate gaps for a list 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including generic body and query fields. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 lists creator-owned Headings, using a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier. The 'creator-owned' phrase implicitly distinguishes it from broader search or single-get operations, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 use for listing headings owned by the creator, but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ruddur_search_headings or when not to use it. The required scope 'content.read' is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline, so only clear context without exclusions is provided.

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