markdown_insert_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (replaces exact '/toc' lines with a TOC) but does not mention return value, side effects, or handling of edge cases like missing headings or multiple markers.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the core mechanism (replacing markers with heading-based TOC) and the schema covers parameters. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the focus on '/toc' markers provides sufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') with a clear resource ('/toc markers in markdown') and outcome ('generated table of contents based on headings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on marker replacement, unlike generate or refresh.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when markdown contains '/toc' markers that need to be replaced with a TOC. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like markdown_generate_toc or markdown_refresh_toc or provide exclusion cases.

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