read_document_parts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only operation. It adds context about the type of output (structural parts, ids, headings, Markdown), but does not elaborate on other behaviors like pagination or potential exceptions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides adequate but not extensive behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by clear usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 adequately explains the type of data returned (structural parts with ids, headings, Markdown). It also provides context on when to use the tool. While it does not detail pagination or the exact output structure, it is reasonably complete for a listing tool with an output schema.

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 60%, with descriptions for space_id, project_id, and document_name, but page_size and page_number lack descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving ambiguity for the pagination parameters.

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 a document's structural parts in order, specifies usage for structure (part ids, heading levels, per-part Markdown), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools read_document and list_work_items.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use for structure...' and 'For plain reading use read_document; for a document's work items use list_work_items.' This clarifies when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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