get_headers_footers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only') and the comprehensive scope ('Every header and footer part across all sections'), which gives an agent a clear safety profile. It could add more about side effects or file requirements, but for a getter this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences: the first front-loads the core behavior and output, the second provides sibling routing, and the third adds the read-only trait. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: scope, alternatives, and read-only status are all covered. The only completeness gap is the undocumented file_path parameter, which is minor given its standard naming. Overall, an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description never mentions the file_path parameter or adds meaning beyond its name and type. The parameter is self-evident, but the description misses the opportunity to explain the expected path format or document context, so the agent gets no semantic help beyond the property name.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and a precise resource: every header and footer part across all sections, listing the exact data returned (text content, PAGE-field presence, part type). It also differentiates itself from sibling writers set_header/set_footer and setup_chapter_headers, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use set_header/set_footer to write them and setup_chapter_headers for per-chapter running headers.' This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the sibling tools for those cases, leaving nothing to inference.

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