scmp_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (slug, display name, feed URL, parent) and lists all valid values, giving a clear picture of what the tool returns. It does not mention potential side effects or edge cases, but as a read-only list tool, this is acceptable. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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 extremely long, dominated by an exhaustive enumeration of section slugs. While this information is useful, it severely harms conciseness. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, but the massive list makes the description unwieldy and could be better presented as a reference or linked resource rather than inline text.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the fields returned and enumerates all valid section values, which is more than sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but these are not critical for this type of 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, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are none. The long list of values is not parameter-related.

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 SCMP sections and specifies exactly what each entry contains (slug, display name, feed URL, parent section). It ties the tool to /scmp/headlines, distinguishing it from other section tools for different publications. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 this tool is used to retrieve valid section slugs for /scmp/headlines, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other tools or when not to use it. It offers context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing guidance, so an agent must infer the usage.

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