docx_read_heading_section

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

The description only states 'Read-only' without annotations to reinforce. It doesn't disclose behavior on missing headings, multiple matches, or performance impact. The safety profile is implied but not detailed.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits return format, error handling, and detailed param usage. Insufficient for complete understanding.

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 0%, but the description explains heading_anchor_id and heading_text as identification methods. However, docx_path and max_chars are left undocumented, leaving gaps.

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 'Read one heading section by heading anchor_id or exact heading text', specifying the verb (read), resource (heading section), and two identification methods. It distinguishes from siblings like docx_list_headings or docx_read_anchor, though it could be more explicit about what 'heading section' entails.

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 like docx_read_anchor or docx_list_headings. The 'Read-only' prefix hints at safety but doesn't explain prerequisites or scenarios.

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