get_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly closes the mutation question with 'Read-only,' discloses the live-read behavior for documents open in Word, and reveals the flat-list output shape and detected_via field on entries.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and technical detection details in the follow-up. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the behavior, both heading systems, output shape, live behavior, and read-only safety. It is slightly incomplete on parameter semantics and usage route, but the output schema absorbs the return-value burden.

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%, yet the description does not explain the required file_path or the live parameter and its 'auto' default. The phrase 'Documents open in Word are read live' is the only indirect hint about live behavior, leaving the main parameter semantics mostly unaddressed.

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?

Opens with 'List every heading with its body paragraph index and level' – a specific verb, resource, and output detail. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly covering both Heading styles and w:outlineLvl overrides, making its role as an outline-extraction tool clear.

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 implies outline extraction but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent is not told when to prefer get_outline over related tools like get_text, get_styles, or get_headers_footers.

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