get_document_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose whether it is non-destructive, whether the document must be open, or any permissions needed. As a read operation, 'Get' implies safety, but no explicit confirmation is given. This is minimal disclosure.

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 very concise: three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose ('Get structural overview'), the second specifies components, and the third notes return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but could provide more context. It does not mention that the tool works on the currently open document or any prerequisites. The output schema explains return structure, but contextual completeness is slightly lacking.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema (which has none). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description's job for parameters is trivially satisfied. No improvement needed.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'document structure'. It lists what the overview includes (sections, paragraphs, tables, heading outline), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_text (plain text) or get_document_statistics (counts). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use for structural overviews, but lacks guidance such as 'for detailed content use get_document_text' or 'for metadata use get_document_info'. The context is adequate but not explicit.

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