get_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get a specific section by ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get a specific section by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous details or redundancy are present.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what a 'section' is in this context, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like errors or permissions. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'section_id' documented as 'Section ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID' without explaining the ID's format, source, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Get a specific section by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (section), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sections' (plural) or explain what a 'section' is in this context. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity about the domain or what distinguishes this retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing section ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_sections' for listing multiple sections or 'get_case' for other entities. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter.

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