get_hacktricks_section

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses token range (~200-500 vs 3000+ for full page), implying safe read-only behavior. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or auth, but given context, sufficiently transparent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value (purpose, efficiency claim, typical sections, prerequisite, comparative token count).

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter hints, and expected output size. Referencing sibling tool (get_hacktricks_outline) completes the workflow guidance.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting partial match and case-insensitivity for section, and enumerates common section names, going beyond 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 'Extract ONE SECTION from a page' and positions it as the 'MOST EFFICIENT way to read content'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by offering targeted extraction rather than full page retrieval.

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 recommends using get_hacktricks_outline first to find exact section names, and lists common section names. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and directs the agent to a prerequisite step.

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