paper_sections

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: an environment/licence prerequisite (desktop app open with Atelier or Portfolio licence) and the downstream behavior that mandatory letterhead/backtest sections are always reinstated. It does not describe pagination or failure modes when the app is missing, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the prerequisite and then the purpose, which is reasonable, but the app/licence requirement is stated twice (opening paragraph and closing sentence), a redundant repetition that dilutes an otherwise tight three-sentence description.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it specifies the return shape, the licensing prerequisite, and the consumer tools. It leaves out what happens if the licence is absent beyond the install instruction, so slightly short of complete.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing to document, and the description still usefully describes the returned object fields.

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 ('List every section a research paper can contain') and even enumerates the returned field shape {id, group, label, mandatory, in_default}. This clearly distinguishes it from export_paper and export_atlas, which consume the ids rather than list them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it to choose the `layout` ids for export_paper or export_atlas.' It also explains the downstream consequence that mandatory sections are re-added and that caller order is respected, so the agent knows the sequencing contract.

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