dashy_get_section

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as safe, and the description's 'Get' matches it without contradiction. The description adds context about how the input is interpreted (index vs name), but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or what happens when a section is not found.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits the role of `filename` and any error behavior. The sibling `dashy_list_config_files` suggests multiple config files may exist, so the lack of guidance on `filename` leaves a noticeable gap in practical usage.

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 must compensate for parameter meanings. It effectively explains that `sid` can be a zero-based index or exact section name, adding critical meaning beyond the raw string schema. However, the optional `filename` parameter is left unexplained, creating ambiguity about its role despite its self-explanatory name.

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 (get), the resource (section), and the method of identification (zero-based index or exact section name). This distinguishes it from sibling section tools (add/update/delete) and other getters like get_key and get_item, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a specific section is needed by index or name, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use get_config instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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