supportpages_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful pagination behavior ('read the next page') and indicates the shape of returned items (IDs and review state). With annotations carrying the mutation/auth profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The only waste is the ambiguity introduced by calling them 'suggestions' when the tool is about sections.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. The gaps are the undocumented workspace parameter and the failure to position this tool against its numerous sibling list/review tools, which an agent selecting among fifty siblings would need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains after_id's pagination role well (beyond the schema's bare pattern), but the 'workspace' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List persisted suggestions with IDs and review state'), which is clearer than the terse name alone. However, it names 'suggestions' while the tool is called 'list_sections', creating a resource-label mismatch that could confuse selection. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings such as supportpages_suggest_sections or supportpages_review_sections.

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 only guidance is 'Use after_id to read the next page,' which is pagination mechanics rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this list tool should be chosen over supportpages_list_recommendations, supportpages_review_sections, or other list/review siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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