list_agents_md_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a list of headings and frames the tool as context-saving, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or how it behaves if AGENTS.md is missing. For a simple list operation, these are minor gaps but still present.

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 entire description is one concise sentence of about 24 words. The action is front-loaded ('List the headings'), and the rationale provides useful context without any filler.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the action, the target, and the reason to use it. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., plain list vs markdown), but since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about the response shape would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds meaning by saying 'this project's AGENTS.md', indicating the target is fixed to the current project and no path or filter argument is required.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the headings in this project's AGENTS.md'), and explains the purpose ('so a client can pull one section instead of spending context on the whole file'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_agents_md, which reads the full file.

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 the use case: when a client wants to retrieve only the section headers rather than the full document. The phrase 'instead of spending context on the whole file' contrasts with reading the entire file, effectively pointing at read_agents_md as the alternative, but it does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not conditions.

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