output_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses verbatim return behavior and the list-sections mode. It omits edge behaviors like what happens when a section is not found or how max_chars truncates output, but the core behavior is clearly 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 primary action and purpose are front-loaded, and the secondary usage instruction is packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value ('verbatim' section). It covers the main usage modes and lists example sections. Missing failure-mode details are minor for a straightforward read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces `section` usage ('Call without section to list') but adds no real meaning beyond what the input schema already documents for `out_path`, `section`, and `max_chars`.

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?

Description uses a precise verb and resource: 'Return one section of an .out file verbatim.' It also states scope ('for anything the summary does not parse') and gives concrete examples (TECH1, TECH4, residuals), making it clearly distinguishable from output_summary and compare_fit.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for content the summary does not parse, and instructs how to discover sections by omitting `section`. This gives clear decision rules relative to the companion summary tool, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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