ism_list_sections

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

Annotations indicate read-only; the description confirms listing behavior and adds details on return format ({count, sections}) and version handling, going beyond annotation.

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 consists of two efficient sentences that front-load purpose and cover key behavior without waste.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return shape, and version 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains that version overrides the active version, adding meaning to the otherwise vague parameter definition.

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 it lists distinct ISM Section values and connects to the `tags` filter on ism_applicable, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like ism_list_classifications.

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 explains that this tool provides the vocabulary for the `tags` filter on ism_applicable, implying usage for obtaining filter values, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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