read_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy filename matching and lower token cost, but does not mention safety (read-only), error handling (e.g., missing heading), or idempotency.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core action with scope, the second adds benefits. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, file matching behavior, and cost efficiency. Could mention that the result is plain text or markdown, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'fuzzy filename match' for the file parameter, slightly augmenting the schema. No additional semantic value for the heading parameter beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: reading one section of a note from a heading to the next heading of equal or higher level. It differentiates from sibling tools like read_full_note (implied) and edit_section by focusing on partial reading.

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 states a key benefit ('lower token cost than reading the whole document'), guiding toward usage when efficiency matters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like edit_section or search_vault.

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