get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the schema can't convey: the response carries a current version, and the content must be forwarded verbatim to replace_section, implying version-staleness matters. It omits failure behavior for a missing or non-unique heading.

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 padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint and parameter note. Every clause carries information the agent could not get from structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (body plus current version) and how to chain it into replace_section. For a two-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load, and it explains the non-obvious parameter well: headingPath 'lists ancestor titles and the target heading,' which is essential given the schema only says it's a string array. noteId is left to the obvious interpretation, and no format details (e.g., whether titles are case-sensitive or matched exactly) are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a unique heading section body and current version.' The word 'unique' plus the headingPath note makes clear this resolves one section, which distinguishes it from get_note (whole note) and search_notes. Sibling differentiation is implied through the replace_section reference rather than stated as an explicit contrast.

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?

Gives a clear read-then-write workflow: 'Pass the returned content unchanged as oldText to replace_section,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the prerequisite for a sibling. It does not state when to prefer get_note or search_notes instead, or what happens if the heading path is ambiguous.

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