get_doc_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonable work: it declares the read-only, documentation-only nature and discloses a non-obvious fallback behavior (returning the heading list when the heading is not found). It does not mention permissions or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the return format and extraction boundary stated first and the fallback and scope notes following. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (Markdown), the extraction boundary, the failure fallback, and the read-only scope. What remains unstated, such as the exact shape of the returned heading list or whether matching is case-insensitive, is minor.

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%, with enum values and the section-matching hint already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's boundary definition ('heading to the next heading of the same level') adds a little meaning to how 'section' is interpreted but does not clarify the parameters themselves.

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 names a specific verb and resource (return one documentation section as Markdown) and defines the exact extraction boundary: from the heading to the next heading of the same level. That precision, plus the 'documentation only' scoping, separates it cleanly from the register/SunSpec sibling tools.

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 establishes the usage context clearly by flagging 'Documentation only; never touches a device', which routes the agent away from device-facing siblings, and it documents the fallback path of returning the heading list when a section is not found. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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