phpipam.sections.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action and does not mention what happens if neither id nor name is supplied, if both are provided (precedence), or if no matching section is found. These are important behavioral traits for a get operation that the description leaves unaddressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy or extraneous detail. Every word serves a purpose, making it optimally concise for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for successful invocation. Both parameters are optional in the schema, but the description does not state that at least one of id or name should be provided, nor does it explain the behavior when both are absent. Additionally, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., section object, null, error). These gaps limit the agent's ability to use the tool reliably.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the fact that name is an alternative to ID. The description adds little beyond restating 'by ID or name', and it doesn't clarify parameter precedence or formatting. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully elevate above that baseline.

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 'Get a specific section by ID or name' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (section), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sections.list (which lists all sections) and sections.ensure (which creates/updates). The scope is narrowed to retrieval by ID or name, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single section when the caller knows its ID or name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like sections.list or sections.ensure. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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