list_sections

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

The annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds a scope constraint ('for one program'). It does not disclose additional behaviors like ordering, pagination, or error handling, but the program scope is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 description adequately covers the core functionality and scope. It implies the return type (sections and rung counts) and is sufficient for a simple tool, though it lacks explicit mention of edge cases or output format details.

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 schema parameters (project_id, program_name) have no descriptions, and the tool description provides no clarification about their meaning or expected format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameters.

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 lists sections and rung counts for a single program, distinguishing it from tools that list programs or manage other aspects. It is specific about the scope and the data returned.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'for one program,' which implies a use case but lacks direct guidance on choosing this over other similar tools (e.g., list_programs, get_program_context).

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