markdown_toc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the main action without explaining whether the tool modifies anything, what output format is returned, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 core description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the prefix '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' adds noise and does not contribute to understanding the tool's purpose or usage. The essential content is concise and clear.

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, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the output format or behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty markdown, invalid headings). Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to fully enable correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'markdown' and 'max_depth'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 'Generate a table of contents from markdown headings' uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('table of contents from markdown headings'), clearly distinguishing it from all sibling tools. It is a concise, unambiguous statement of the tool's primary function.

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 the tool's usage (input markdown, output a TOC) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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