get_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool returns a structural summary rather than raw content, but the 'etc.' leaves the exact response fields and format underspecified. For a simple read-only tool this is acceptable but not complete.

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 concise sentence with the key action and an illustrative parenthetical. It has minimal waste, though 'structure/shape' is slightly redundant and 'etc.' adds little concrete detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, the return value is underspecified ('structure/shape', 'etc.'), and there is no guidance distinguishing it from get_toc or get_text, which leaves room for mis-selection.

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 tref as 'The text reference' and covers 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds only the context that the reference points to a text whose structure is returned, with no format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource: the structure or shape of a text, with concrete examples like number of chapters and sections. It is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_toc or get_text.

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 it should be used when an agent needs a high-level structural overview of a text rather than its full content. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over closely related sibling tools like get_toc, and it states no exclusions or alternatives.

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