get_section

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it returns the complete (untruncated) section text — the key behavioral fact for its primary use case — but says nothing about failure modes (heading not found, ambiguous/multi-match headings) or how many sections can be returned per heading match.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded before the usage hint. The file-format enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed, but overall density is high with no 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 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, primary use case, and accepted input forms. The main gap is edge-case behavior — what happens when the heading matches nothing or matches multiple sections — which is not covered anywhere.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's discussion of accepted file formats ('skill/SKILL.md', bare skill names, optional prefixes) largely restates the schema's own file description rather than adding new semantics.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Get the FULL text of one section of a doc by heading.' The word 'FULL' explicitly distinguishes it from the truncated snippets returned by search_docs/search_all, and the tool's role versus the broader get_doc sibling is inferable from 'one section ... by heading.'

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?

States a concrete use case: 'use it to expand a truncated search_docs / search_all result,' which names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool. It does not, however, say when to prefer get_doc (whole document) over this section-level tool, so the routing guidance is one-sided.

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