list_document_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, which is good. However, it doesn't disclose return format, ordering semantics beyond 'in order,' or whether empty documents return nothing. For a read-only listing tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the operation, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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-only listing tool with a single parameter and full schema coverage, this description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what it does and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the 'list all sections' framing, though more detail on what section data is returned would strengthen it.

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% — the single parameter document_id is already documented as 'The document ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('sections of an IT Glue document') with a clear scope ('all sections in order'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_document_folders, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can identify the purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to read document content before editing.' This tells the agent when to use this tool — specifically as a precursor to editing a document. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the workflow guidance is practical and actionable.

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