word_read_header_footer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly implies a non-destructive operation, which is good. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases such as how multiple sections are handled, what happens if the variant is missing, or the exact return format. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and key qualifiers. No redundant or filler words are present, earning a perfect score for 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?

For a simple read tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks explicit mention of return value structure (since there is no output schema) and does not address multi-section behavior, which is important for header/footer reading in Word documents. The one-sentence description leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond restating the variant names ('default/first/even') already present in the schema. It does not clarify any additional meaning or relationships between parameters.

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 ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('header or footer') with variants, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like word_read_document or word_read_footnotes. The phrase 'via the document's section properties' further clarifies the mechanism without ambiguity.

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 when to use the tool (to read header/footer text) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Unlike the get_calls example, it does not say 'use X instead' or describe scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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