Get Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context beyond these by specifying what the returned details include and that the operation is scoped to a single section by GID. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 states the core purpose and return fields; the second gives a cross-reference to a sibling tool. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with full annotation coverage and a descriptive schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to obtain the required parameter, and how it relates to the sibling list operation. No significant gaps 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description enhances section_gid semantics by pointing to asana_get_project_sections as the source for GIDs, which aids correct invocation. The opt_fields parameter is not expanded in the description, but the schema's description is sufficient.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a single section by GID.' It also lists the returned fields (name, created_at, parent project) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool asana_get_project_sections, which lists all 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use asana_get_project_sections to list all sections and find GIDs, implying this tool is for fetching a single section when the GID is already known. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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