get_document_toc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is bounded, derived from specific sources, and explicitly not claimed to be an author-provided table of contents.

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 sentence communicates the core action, source, and a key limitation without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only annotations and clear schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names both source modalities and warns against overclaiming. It could have explicitly stated that the output is a hierarchy or navigation tree, but 'bounded navigation' conveys the essential result well enough.

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 already documents three required parameters with useful provenance details. The description adds little about parameter meaning, though the word 'bounded' loosely hints at max_items. Since schema coverage is 75% and max_items is the only undocumented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('bounded navigation'), and explains the two sources (indexed Markdown headings or PDF pages). It also distinguishes itself from an author-provided table of contents, making its scope and purpose unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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 implies when this tool is relevant by positioning it as derived, bounded navigation rather than an author-provided TOC. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like read_document_section, find_in_document, or get_document_metadata, nor does it list exclusion conditions.

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