read_document_parts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: parts are returned in order, each workitem part carries its description as Markdown, and the tool provides structural info like part IDs and heading levels. No contradictions, and no hidden side effects are implied.

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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of content types. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently adds usage guidance without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (parts, headings, body, work item descriptions), usage guidance, and comparisons. For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, this is complete.

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 5 parameters with 60% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning part IDs (for move_work_item_to_document). It does not clarify pagination parameters (page_size, page_number) or the meaning of the required IDs. Since coverage is moderate and description adds minimal value, score is low.

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 purpose: 'List the structural parts of a document in order.' It specifies the content (part IDs, heading levels, body content, work item descriptions as Markdown) and distinguishes from siblings by recommending `read_document` for plain reading and `list_work_items` for listing work items. This provides specific verb+resource and clear differentiation.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to map document structure) and when not to ('For plain reading prefer read_document. To list a document's work items use list_work_items instead.'). This offers strong guidance on appropriate usage and alternatives.

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