docx_list_headers_footers

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'without modifying them', which is sufficient for a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential errors or behavior when headers/footers are absent. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but the information is minimal.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but lacks structured presentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the content is sparse.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of headers/footers with text). Given the tool's simplicity, a description of the return format is necessary for completeness.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description does not explain the parameters (docx_path, max_preview). The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of max_preview.

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 inspects header/footer parts and visible text without modification. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('header/footer parts'), distinguishing it from siblings like docx_list_parts or docx_inspect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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