get_section

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

There are no annotations, but the description implies a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but the tool name and description strongly suggest it is non-mutating.

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 concise and well-structured, combining the core functionality and a usage hint in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary detail while remaining informative.

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 description and sibling context provide a good overall understanding, but the lack of parameter descriptions leaves some gaps regarding input formats. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the return type is not fully specified.

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 provides no descriptions for the 'document' and 'section' parameters. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the format of 'section' (exact heading, partial match, case sensitivity) is ambiguous, leaving the agent to infer expected input.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning every chunk under a specific heading of a document, joined in order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chunk (single chunk) and get_pages (pages).

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use when you know the section name; otherwise search first.' This provides clear guidance and points to the alternative search_library tool when the section name is unknown.

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