Get LiveDoc outline

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint already declared, the description still adds value: it discloses that body text is *not* rendered (a meaningful token/efficiency trait), that revision is optional via "at the requested revision", and that the document must be readable by the signed-in Polarion user (auth prerequisite). It stops short of covering failure behavior for missing revisions/documents or any paging, which is why it is not a 5.

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 tight sentences in a deliberate order: what it returns, when to use it and what to use instead, then prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the returned outline structure, so the agent knows what it gets back. With annotations carrying the safety profile and a complete schema, nothing needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented, including the revision-omission default. The description reinforces the revision and access scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads a LiveDoc at the requested revision") plus the exact return payload shape ("{outline} with each heading's part ID, title, level, and nested heading path"). It also carves itself apart from read_document_section and read_document_markdown, so the agent can select it without comparing 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?

Gives an explicit use case ("Use this to locate a section") and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: read_document_section for section content, read_document_markdown for the full document. No inference is required.

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