cna_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the data is 'public' and that the tool 'returns' an inventory, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Get CNA sections'), followed by a clarifying explanation of the return value and its connection to the headlines endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (public CNA editorial section inventory) and its downstream use (headlines endpoint). It does not describe the exact format of the returned data, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward list-returning tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) and correctly does not redundantly explain anything.

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 purpose: 'Get CNA sections' and clarifies it returns the public CNA editorial section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from other section tools (e.g., nyt_sections, pcgamer_sections) by naming a specific resource (CNA) and its relationship to the headlines endpoint.

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 when to use this tool (when you need CNA section inventory) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It references the headlines endpoint, which hints at its role, but there is no direct guidance on selecting this over other section tools or CNA-specific tools like cna_headlines.

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