nbc_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the slugs are 'live-verified' and that the tool returns section slugs, but it does not disclose the exact response structure (e.g., array of strings vs objects), pagination, or any potential rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not fully transparent about the output format.

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, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It adds the key detail about returning slugs for nbc-headlines without any unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format (e.g., 'returns a list of string slugs'), but it already conveys that it returns slugs. The relationship to nbc-headlines adds valuable context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters since there are none, and no additional parameter semantics are needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get NBC News RSS sections' – a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies what it returns ('the exact live-verified public RSS section slugs accepted by nbc-headlines'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like nbc_headlines or other section tools by highlighting its role as a provider of slugs for another tool.

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: it provides the slugs needed by nbc-headlines, so an agent knows to call this tool before using nbc_headlines with section filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though as a parameterless utility its usage is self-evident.

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