validate_chapter_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly signals a read-only diagnostic operation ('Read back') and specifies exactly what state is inspected. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the non-mutating nature is sufficiently clear.

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 single sentence is dense but well-structured, front-loading the operation and then using a colon to enumerate the specific state components. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the single obvious parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the read-back framing, the description covers what the tool reports and how it relates to setup_chapter_headers. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 file_path, adding no guidance about path format, required document type, or file accessibility. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Read back the chapter-header state') and enumerates three concrete outputs: sections carrying STYLEREF fields with field codes, heading levels per section, and gaps that setup_chapter_headers would fill. This clearly distinguishes it from generic header-reading tools and from the related setup tool.

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 reference to 'the gaps setup_chapter_headers would fill' gives an implicit usage context: validate first, then fill gaps with setup_chapter_headers. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative header-inspection tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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