get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some context by specifying 'configuration and settings,' but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error behavior, or permissions. The verb 'Get' implies safety, so this is adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, usage hint, then args. No fluff or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-object retrieval with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and parameter meanings. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case details, but the tool's simplicity and output schema reduce the need for more.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing clear definitions for both parameters. 'section_id' is further clarified as 'section/task,' adding useful meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('specific section') with clear scope ('full details including its configuration and settings'). It distinguishes from sibling get_sections by focusing on a single section and even references get_sections for ID lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'Call get_sections first if you need to find the section_id.' This gives clear guidance on the prerequisite and differentiates from the list operation.

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