get_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key limitation for large documents and mentions included diagnostics like pages with no text layer or low-resolution images, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or other operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core index content and then adds the large-document limitation, get_outline alternative, diagnostic pages, and starting guidance. It is dense but mostly every sentence carries useful information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields in detail. It covers the tool's contents, a key limitation, the sibling alternative, and when to start here, leaving only minor operational details unstated.

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 is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the document reference. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a document index containing outline entries with pages, table/figure captions with page and position, and pages lacking text or having low-resolution images. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_outline by explaining that large documents only show top outline levels while get_outline drills into a 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?

It gives a clear usage cue: "Start here to find where the content is." It also names the relevant alternative, get_outline, for entries under a section, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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