find-sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful detail about server-side search avoiding full fetches, which is a performance behavior. It does not disclose any additional side effects or edge cases, but the annotations carry the main burden. This aligns with a typical 3 score for tools with good annotations and one added contextual detail.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a brief performance note. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. Every sentence contributes value, earning the highest 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose and a key efficiency behavior, and schema covers parameter syntax. However, the ambiguity of 'other criteria' and the lack of explicit behavior when searchText is omitted (though in schema) means it is slightly less complete than a perfect score.

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 schema describes both parameters in full (projectId and searchText, including wildcard and case-insensitive behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only restating that search is by name and introducing 'other criteria' which is not reflected in the parameters. Hence, it does not elevate beyond the baseline of 3.

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 the tool searches for sections within a project, which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add-sections and update-sections, and the mention of server-side search adds context. However, 'or other criteria' is vague and not fully specified by the schema, which only supports name-based search, making the purpose slightly less precise.

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 for searching sections efficiently, noting it avoids fetching all sections. However, it does not explicitly list when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention other tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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