list_datasheet_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (titles and page numbers, no chunk text) and input modes. However, it doesn't mention caching, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: opening states action, second explains context and sibling relationship, third specifies output, fourth details parameters. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, input modes, and output nature. It is complete and self-contained.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds operational context: 'Upload a local PDF file' for file_path and 'Fetch cached data from CDN' for sku, clarifying the source behavior beyond the schema.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'datasheet sections', specifies it returns table-of-contents titles and page numbers, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'read_datasheet' by noting it provides an overview before reading chunks.

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 explicitly frames this tool as a lightweight discovery step before using read_datasheet, and describes two input modes (file_path or sku). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but effectively communicates context.

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