list_footnotes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only and describes the returned content in useful detail. It doesn't mention edge cases like missing files or ordering, but for a simple list operation 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives routing guidance and safety status. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states scope, output content, read-only behavior, and directs to sibling tools for modifications and validation.

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 single parameter, file_path, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what file_path means or how it should be provided. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 lists every footnote in the document, specifying the exact returned fields: id, display position, and full text. This distinguishes it from related tools like list_endnotes by scope and resource type.

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 names the modification tools (add_footnote/edit_footnote/delete_footnote) and the integrity-check tool (validate_notes), telling the agent when to use alternatives. This removes ambiguity about whether this tool can modify or validate.

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