get_section

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

Descriptions must carry the full burden since annotations are absent. It does disclose behavioral details like exact heading matching, body_format options, and optional file output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error behavior when headings are not found.

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 appropriately sized with a single-purpose opening sentence followed by a clear, per-line argument list. Every line adds semantic value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to use vs alternatives) and behavioral context (e.g., error handling, read-only nature), which leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so effectively: page_id (page ID), heading (exact text), body_format (allowed values and default), and output_file (behavior). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get content of a specific section') with a specific resource (a section by heading name). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_page (whole page) and get_page_sections (list of sections).

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 usage when you know the exact heading text, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_page_sections or get_page). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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