list_sections_in_part

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral detail: "Returns a flat list of sections extracted from the structure tree," which clarifies the extraction method and result format. It also explains the chapter semantics and part_number type. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 four concise sentences, each adding meaningful information: function, return type, usage context, and parameter type hints. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently expands with necessary details.

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 a simple read-only listing operation with an output schema present (though not shown, the signal indicates it exists). The description covers the key aspects: what it lists, how it behaves (flat list from structure tree), and clarifies the most important parameter (chapter). Given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention sorting or limits if any exist.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It explains chapter (default '1' for FAR, '2' for DFARS) and states part_number accepts int or string. However, it does not address the 'date' or 'title_number' parameters at all. With 4 parameters and only partial explanation, the description leaves room for ambiguity, though it covers the most important ones.

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 states the verb and resource: "List all sections in a FAR/DFARS part with their headings." It specifies the scope (FAR/DFARS part) and output (flat list of sections), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_cfr_structure (tree structure) and get_cfr_content (content retrieval). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides context: "Useful for understanding the scope of a FAR part before drilling into specific sections." It also clarifies the chapter parameter: "Default chapter='1' (FAR). Use chapter='2' for DFARS." This gives actionable guidance on when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Good but not exhaustive.

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