list_headings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond 'inspect sections', which is consistent with these annotations. It does not disclose details like whether the tool returns heading levels, ordering, or that it only reads headings without content. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, very concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could include a brief note about the parameter or output without sacrificing conciseness.

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 is simple (1 parameter, no enums) and has an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the output is a list of headings or any structure. The phrase 'before reading a chunk' hints at usage but doesn't explain what the tool returns. With annotations already covering read-only and idempotence, the description should clarify the output to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'path' with no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description does not mention or explain the 'path' parameter at all. It says 'known page' but does not clarify how to specify the page (e.g., file path, ID). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter completely unspecified.

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 'Inspect sections within a known page before reading a chunk' clearly states the tool's function: listing headings/sections of a page. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_section' (reads content) and 'search_within_page' (searches within page). The verb 'inspect' and noun 'sections' are specific, though the output format (e.g., list of headings) is not explicitly stated.

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 implies a workflow context ('before reading a chunk'), suggesting when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_within_page' or 'list_pages'. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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