get_toc

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds the specific output components (section index, title, anchor), providing extra detail beyond the annotations. It does not conflict with annotations, and adds value by describing the nature of the result. However, it doesn't discuss error behaviors or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and result. No fluff, every word contributes.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and output schema provided. The description is adequate but could slightly benefit from clarifying that 'title' refers to the page title or identifier. Given the simplicity, it's mostly complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'title' with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explicitly explain what 'title' refers to. Although it's implied it's the page title, the description fails to clarify the parameter's format or meaning. Since coverage is zero, the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention the parameter at all.

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 ('Return'), names the resource (a page's table of contents), and explicitly lists what it returns (section index, title, anchor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or get_section.

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 over alternatives like get_page or get_section. It implies the purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when it's the appropriate choice. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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