get_standard_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that this tool returns only the table of contents (with refs) and not the actual body text, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. This goes beyond a simple 'retrieves index' and helps set expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence adds actionable guidance about using get_paragraph, with no waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (TOC with hierarchy and ref ranges) and provides the next step (calling get_paragraph). It is complete in the context of sibling tools and the domain.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter std_num, including an example and a pointer to search_standards. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the table of contents of a standard (chapter/section hierarchy with paragraph range refs). It distinguishes itself from get_paragraph by explicitly noting that actual body text is read via get_paragraph, making the scope 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 provides clear context: use this tool to get the structural index, then call get_paragraph to read content within the ref ranges. It names the alternative (get_paragraph) and implies when to use each, but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or other alternatives.

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