list_chapters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that chapter bodies are excluded, which is critical behavioral information. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering, or access requirements, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a crucial qualifier. Zero wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present). The description covers purpose and scope, and the output schema handles return format. It does not mention whether the outline is a flat list or hierarchical, but that's an edge case. Overall, sufficiently complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 only parameter, project_id, is self-explanatory from its name and schema type. The description does not add meaning beyond saying 'a project's', but the schema already provides adequate detail for a single standard identifier. Schema coverage is 0%, but minimal compensation is needed here.

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 specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'project's volume/chapter outline', distinguishing it from tools like get_chapter which would return full content. The phrase 'without chapter bodies' further specifies scope, making the purpose 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need an outline, not the full text) and differentiates it from content-retrieval tools. It does not explicitly name sister tools or state exclusions, but the scope qualifier 'without chapter bodies' provides clear usage context.

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