Get Document Outline

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral insight. It does not explain what 'structure' entails (e.g., heading hierarchy, sections, outline levels), leaving ambiguity about the return value.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise, but the lack of detail is a trade-off; a second sentence clarifying the output or parameter would improve it without harming conciseness.

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 large sibling set (many reading and writing tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format or how to interpret the 'structure', leaving the agent underinformed.

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 sole parameter 'filename' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it at all. Agents receive no guidance on what value to provide (file path, extension, etc.), making correct invocation difficult.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('the structure of a Word document'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_document_text, get_document_info, and get_document_xml, each of which retrieves different aspects.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided for differentiation, such as comparing output to get_document_text or how 'structure' differs from 'info'. Without this, an agent may choose it incorrectly.

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