get_toc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that passing a 'version' triggers a download and conversion on first use, and notes that section numbers often change between releases. These are important behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or whether it has any side effects beyond the initial conversion (e.g., caching behavior). The transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 long, with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second sentence adds targeted usage guidance and a behavioral note. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the version behavior, and a typical use case. It could be improved by briefly describing the return format (e.g., list of section numbers and titles), but the phrase 'section structure' provides enough context for an agent to infer the output. The absence of an output schema increases the value of a description, and this one is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the 'version' parameter's purpose ('see the structure of a past version') and the conversion note, but the schema already describes the parameter's accepted formats and defaults. The description does not enrich the semantics of 'spec_id' beyond what is obvious.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('table of contents (section structure) of a 3GPP specification'). It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like 'get_section' (which reads a specific section) and 'list_versions' (which lists versions). The phrase 'check the table of contents before reading a section' further clarifies its role relative to 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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to inspect the section structure, especially before reading an older version. It warns that section numbers move between releases, implying when to use this tool over others. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'get_section'), the guidance is direct and actionable. The version parameter description (in schema) adds additional hints like using 'list_versions', which compensates slightly.

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