aethis_discover_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description usefully discloses that the service analyses raw text (implying LLM-driven, non-deterministic output, consistent with idempotentHint=false), but it says nothing about cost, latency, or whether repeated calls vary. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences that each carry signal: purpose, input, outcome, ordering, and fallback. Slightly marred by the 'rule rulesets' typo and the ordering/fallback points being split across two trailing sentences, but there is no filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, required input, sequencing, and the corrective sibling. It hints at the return ('which sections should be authored as separate rulesets') but never describes the shape of the returned sections, which is the one gap for a tool whose whole value is its output.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that raw source text must be supplied (mapping to 'sources'), adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('discover the logical sections of source legislation') and goes further by explaining the outcome ('identifies which sections should be authored as separate rule rulesets'). This clearly separates it from siblings like aethis_refine_sections and aethis_validate_sections without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering constraint ('Run BEFORE creating projects') and names the alternative for the failure case ('Call aethis_refine_sections if sections are missing or incorrectly split'). Both the when-to-use and the redirect condition are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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