fetch_document_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the section is 'exact' and 'detailed', suggesting it returns full content rather than a snippet. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid or missing section IDs, error handling, or rate limits. It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function and its relationship to search_document_memory, which is essential context. However, it doesn't detail return value structure, error behavior, or prerequisites like 'call search_document_memory first', leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema provides one integer parameter, section_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the section comes from search_document_memory, implying that section_id is the ID from that search result. This adds meaning but is indirect; it doesn't explicitly state that section_id must be an ID obtained from that tool.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('one exact detailed memory section'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'search_document_memory' by noting the section is 'returned by' that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'fetch' or 'get_document_memory', so it's specific but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage after running search_document_memory, since it says the section is 'returned by' that tool. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions or alternative tool names. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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