get_doc_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is a heading/anchor listing rather than body content, but does not disclose ordering, hierarchy depth, or whether anchor identifiers are callable elsewhere; an output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the object of the operation (heading/anchor TOC) is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the guidance gaps noted above.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials. It is still thin on how the TOC relates to the read_doc/read_doc_section workflow, which is the main thing an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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% and the single `doc` parameter is documented as "Article id or unique slug," so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only adds that a single article is targeted ("one article"), which is marginal beyond that baseline.

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?

"Show the heading/anchor table of contents for one article" names a specific resource (headings/anchors TOC) and a clear read verb, which distinguishes it in spirit from read_doc and read_doc_section. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation must be inferred from the word "structure."

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this first to find anchors before fetching a section with read_doc_section, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer the navigation use case from the phrase "table of contents" alone.

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