get_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the response is large (~4MB) and mostly static, which is exactly the information an agent needs for caching decisions. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'get' plus the content description makes this reasonably clear.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence defines what the tool returns, and the second provides a high-value operational note about response size and caching. The key information is front-loaded.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers what the response contains, its size, and its stability. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a bit more detail about response structure would be a minor improvement.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the Table of Contents' and defines it as a 'hierarchical list of all available texts in Sefaria organized by category.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling text-fetching tools like get_text or get_index.

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 compare this tool to alternatives or state conditions for when to use it. However, the no-parameter design and 'consider caching' note imply it is meant for retrieving the full hierarchy, which gives some contextual guidance.

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