read_adr_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly signals a read-only operation. It also specifies the scope (single top-level section), which prevents misuse of the tool for nested sections. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., missing section), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler; the core behavior and examples come first, followed by the routing guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is read, how to identify the section, and how to find section names if unknown. No critical operating detail is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `section` parameter by specifying exact heading text and pointing to `list_adr_sections` for names, but it does not need to add more because the schema already documents all three parameters fully.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a single named top-level (##) section of one ADR', with examples of valid sections. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `read_adr` (whole ADR) and `search_adr_sections` (searching).

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use `list_adr_sections` first when the exact section name is unknown, giving a concrete decision rule. This is strong practical guidance for selecting the correct tool.

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