read_document_parts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description supports. The description adds that parts are in order, each workitem part carries its description as Markdown, and pagination is available via page_size/page_number. No contradictions. Minor gap: does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but these are standard for the project.

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 (~120 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidelines, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (5 params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, alternatives, and a helpful detail about workitem descriptions. The output schema handles return documentation, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why part IDs are needed and how parameters like page_size relate to pagination. However, it doesn't add detailed semantics beyond schema descriptions, only use-case context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_document (plain reading) and list_work_items (filtered queries), making the intent unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool (need part IDs for move_work_item, heading levels, per-work-item type/status) and when to prefer alternatives (read_document for plain reading, list_work_items for filtered subsets). It also advises against unnecessary get_work_item calls because descriptions are included.

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