read_section

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear burden. It discloses output format (XML) and compatibility with import_xml, which is helpful. However, it doesn't state side effects, authentication, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded. Could benefit from brief parameter descriptions, but overall efficient.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail on return format specifics, error conditions, and prerequisites. With no annotations, more behavioral context is needed for 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two required parameters ('task' and 'section'). No additional meaning is added beyond their names. Agent would need external knowledge to use correctly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads a program section as Control Expert XML, using specific verb 'Read' and resource 'program section'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_section and delete_section by focusing on reading existing logic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use. Implicitly it's for reading section logic, but lacks alternatives or context like 'use import_xml for writing'. Siblings listed but not compared.

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