get_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately discloses that the tool lists headings and indicates the output fields, but it does not mention potential nuances like handling of nested sections, comments, or whether only literal \section commands are matched. The behavior is generally transparent but not exhaustive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. It avoids fluff and includes only essential details in a compact parenthetical. Every word contributes value, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return fields (title, level, line). It lacks some context, such as whether subsections are included (the phrase '\section{…}' is specific but 'level' hints at hierarchy) and optional projectName usage, but the core functionality is adequately covered given its simplicity.

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 50%: filePath has no description, while projectName is described in the schema. The description says 'in a file' but adds no further meaning to filePath or projectName. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not compensate, parameter semantics are minimally addressed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('LaTeX \section{…} headings in a file'), with a parenthetical clarifying the output fields (title, level, line). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (whole file content) and get_section_content (likely returns section content).

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include get_section_content and read_file, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, not directly stated.

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