wired_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the listing is complete, public, RSS-backed, and that one navigation link (Big Story) is intentionally excluded. This is solid context for a zero-parameter read-only list operation, though it does not mention output envelope, ordering, or rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose and output fields in the first two sentences. However, the opening sentence 'List WIRED sections.' is largely redundant with the second sentence, preventing a perfect score.

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 zero-parameter enumeration, the description covers the output fields, the consuming endpoint, the data source, and the one notable exclusion. The only small gap is that the reason for the Big Story exclusion is deferred to the endpoint markdown rather than stated inline, and there is no output schema to define the response shape.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description compensates by explaining what the returned items contain, which is the only meaningful semantic information an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('WIRED sections') and explicitly ties the result set to the endpoint it serves ('accepted by /wired/headlines'). It also names the output fields (slug, display name, landing-page URL), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like wired_headlines or wired_article.

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 clearly scopes when this tool is appropriate: when the full WIRED section taxonomy is needed, especially for use with /wired/headlines. It does not explicitly name an alternative to prefer in other cases, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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