outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a lightweight/cheap read that returns only headings rather than full content, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file), permissions, or size limits.

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 clause: what it returns, then why it is worth calling. Zero filler.

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-value detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the shape (headings + levels). For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only path-format guidance is missing.

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 0% for the single file_path parameter, so the description must compensate. 'of a note' weakly implies the path is a note identifier, but format/source (vault-relative vs absolute) is left entirely unstated.

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 precisely what is returned: a note's headings with their levels. Implicitly distinguishes itself from read_note via 'cheap context before reading the whole thing,' though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'before reading the whole thing' implies the workflow position relative to read_note/read tools, giving usable but inferred guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.

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