get_footer_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation by returning footer text or error, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or behavior when no footer exists. Score 3 due to minimal but non-contradictory 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 extremely concise with two functional lines, no fluff, and a clear structure (description, args, returns). Every sentence is meaningful.

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 tool's low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return. However, it omits details like error handling, index conventions, and what 'or error' entails. Score 3 as adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief description of 'section_index' as 'Section to get footer from', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify indexing (e.g., 0-indexed) or the default value's significance.

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 clearly states 'Get the footer text from a section,' specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_header_text' or 'add_footer', leading to a score of 4.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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