list_chapters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose meaningful behavior: 'Uses TOC if available, otherwise splits by pages' and lists return fields. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, failure modes, or the implications of the optional level parameter, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action and the second explains the fallback behavior and return fields. Everything included is relevant and earns its place.

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 description defines the tool's core function and return content, but it lacks guidance on sibling tool distinctions and has no annotations. Given the sibling set includes get_toc and detect_headings which may overlap in purpose, the description is not fully sufficient for correct selection in all cases.

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 schema already documents both file_path and level. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond the schema; it merely restates the overall goal. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the details.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List chapters/sections detected from the PDF.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_toc and detect_headings by describing the output as chapter index, title, page range, and estimated line count. This is unambiguous and actionable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_toc, detect_headings, or read_chapter. It implies usage through the resource type but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or routing guidance. An agent would have to infer the appropriate tool from vague naming and behavior.

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