nbc_section

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description must disclose behavior, yet it only mentions that sections are generated. It does not state whether the tool mutates the drawing, creates new entities, requires an active drawing, or whether 'cut lines' is a destructive operation. With no read-only or safety annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient completeness: it reads more like a label than a tool definition.

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 tool has three parameters, one required, and no schema descriptions, so the description needs to provide operational context. It supplies a basic idea of the output (sections at specified scales) but leaves the operation semantics, input data shape, and screenshot behavior unexplained. The presence of an output schema does not cover these gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention operation, data, or include_screenshot. Because operation is required and has no enum values, the agent receives no help choosing a valid operation string. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 identifies a specific function — generating section views and cutting lines at 1:50/1:20 scales — so an agent can tell roughly what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like nbc_view or nbc_drawing.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nbc_view or nbc_generate. The context in which section generation should be invoked is only implied by the name and the phrase 'section views.'

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