get_hda_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and safety. The word 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it can fail, requires special permissions, or what side effects (if any) it has. This is similar to the update_drive example where transparency scored 2.

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 extremely concise with no fluff, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one. For a simple tool, a one-sentence description can be acceptable, but the sentence is almost too minimal.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a 2-parameter schema, the description is still too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the section names, or how the parameters affect the result. The context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not explain what 'node_type' or 'category' mean, nor how they relate to the HDA being queried. The description only hints that the tool works on an HDA, but leaves the two parameters poorly understood.

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 gets the section names of an HDA, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hda_section_content (which gets content) and hda_get (which likely gets HDA data). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or provide further context on what 'sections' means, so it's not a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose get_hda_sections over other HDA-related tools, or any exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context.

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