get_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List all sections' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and it discloses the output fields (types, names, IDs). It does not discuss pagination, authentication, or edge cases, but for a simple list tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 brief, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence serves a purpose. The Args section is redundant with the schema but harmless. No fluff.

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 single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how to use it, and why it is useful. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 no parameter description (0% coverage), but the description adds 'study_id: The unique identifier of the study.' This is minimal and does not specify format, source, or examples. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 opens with 'List all sections (tasks) in a study with their types, names, and IDs,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_section (single section) and create/update/delete operations.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to find section_id values needed for get_section, update_section, delete_section, generate_guide, and update_interview_guide.' This names the dependent tools and frames the tool as an ID lookup, which is strong usage guidance.

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