read_toc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully states that cached text reflects the state at last field update, that refresh requires Word, and that the operation is read-only. It could add more about error cases or whether reading requires Word, but the core behavior is well covered.

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, stating the tool's core behavior first, then the cache caveat and refresh path, then the management alternatives, and finally the read-only nature. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description covers what is read, the cache staleness behavior, the refresh path, related management tools, and read-only status. The output schema covers return structure, so that is not a gap. The only notable omission is describing the file_path parameter semantics.

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 no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it or clarify the expected path format. Since the description must compensate for the low schema coverage and does not, parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('every TOC-family field... and its cached entries'), including details like main TOC, List of Tables, and List of Figures. It clearly distinguishes the tool from management siblings like insert_toc and delete_toc by the final 'Read-only' statement.

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 states when to refresh (with com_refresh_fields) and re-read, and tells the agent to use insert_toc, insert_caption_list, and delete_toc for managing TOCs. This provides clear routing between read and mutation tools.

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