section.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that high-PII sections have redacted structure, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 includes both Japanese and English, which adds length. While the content is clear, it is slightly redundant. Every sentence serves a purpose but could be more concise.

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 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the basics. It mentions return types (metadata, sanitized structure preview) and usage context. However, it lacks details on error handling or exact response format, which would be expected for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context about usage for resolving handles, but does not add meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool inspects a section by section_pattern_id, returns metadata and a sanitized structure preview, and is used for resolving a section handle. It distinguishes from sibling inspect tools like layout.inspect and part.inspect by specifying 'section'.

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 specifies the tool is for resolving a section handle. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies usage for sections. Clear context is provided without exclusions.

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