read_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a read operation and specifies the exact return shape per format: paragraph-level {loc,text} for docx, sheet dimensions/sampling for xlsx, and shape text for pptx. It stops short of describing error behavior or limits beyond the schema.

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 compact and information-dense, covering three file formats and the return envelope in a single sentence. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explicitly stating the return structure '{format, items|sheets|slides}' and per-format content. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gaps like max_items interaction with sampling are not critical for basic 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 description coverage is 100%: both 'path' and 'max_items' are described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('document outline') and goes beyond that by detailing format-specific behavior for docx, xlsx, and pptx. This clearly distinguishes it from read_location and other sibling tools.

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 this tool is for inspecting document structure before performing edits or annotations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The format breakdown gives implicit context, but there is no direct when/when-not guidance.

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