pandocs_get_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' explicitly indicates a non-destructive operation, and the description accurately describes what is returned. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a read operation.

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 long, with no redundant words. It leads with the primary action and immediately provides helpful context. Every word adds value.

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 sufficiently explains what the tool returns (bitfields, hardware caveats, cross-references) and the input flexibility, which is adequate for a read-only fetch operation. Although there is no output schema, the description covers the essential expectations. The sibling context (pandocs_get_page, pandocs_resolve_link) helps situate it, though not explicitly referenced.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema. The 'ref' description gives multiple accepted formats (Page#slug, section title, #Anchor), and 'include_subsections' clearly states its effect. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('one section'), and explicitly mentions the included content (bitfields, hardware caveats, cross-references), distinguishing it from a generic page fetch. The examples of acceptable inputs further clarify its scope.

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 concrete examples of when to use the tool ('a ref from a search result, a section title, or an anchor'), effectively guiding the agent to choose this tool when resolving references from other pandocs tools. It implies this is the section-specific alternative to pandocs_get_page.

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