get_heading_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (raw markdown body), exclusions (frontmatter, tags, metadata), path constraints, and unreachable cases. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 somewhat long but well-structured, front-loading the action and then providing exclusions and constraints. Every sentence adds value, though the 'unreachable' cases could be slightly more compact. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with significant behavioral constraints (heading path format, unreachable top-level headings, literal '::' limitations), the description covers all necessary context. It explains what is returned, what is excluded, and exactly when to use alternatives. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the return type (raw markdown body) is implicitly clear.

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 description reinforces the heading format and adds context about when to use fallbacks, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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's function: 'Returns the raw markdown body content under the targeted heading.' It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_file_contents (whole note) and get_frontmatter_field (frontmatter values), making the purpose 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, including exclusions: top-level headings and headings containing '::' are unreachable, with direct fallback instructions to get_file_contents. This is outstanding usage guidance.

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