List Action Plan Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context such as pagination with page and per_page, pagination metadata, and the view parameter's effect on response structure. This goes beyond annotations but is not exhaustive.

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 6-7 sentences long and includes endpoint details that are not essential for an agent. While front-loaded with the main purpose, the verbosity and redundancy (e.g., repeating view options from schema) reduce conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, 1 required, views, filters, and pagination, the description covers the main aspects: required param, view parameter, pagination control, and response type. Output schema is missing, but description notes 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plan Sections'. It is fairly complete for an agent with schema access.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'view' parameter's three options in a narrative form and clarifying that 'project_id' is required. It also implies pagination use but does not detail filter syntax, which is already in schema.

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 'Returns all Action Plan Sections for a given Project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_action_plans' by specifying 'sections'. The additional context on views and usage further reinforces purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to enumerate Action Plans when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives.

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