kb_get_section

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: inventory items are paged and next_cursor must be fed back as cursor. It does not mention limits, failure modes, or empty results, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The pagination and id-source sentences are densely packed but each carries distinct information. The clause 'the facts that prove it' is slightly vague for the space it occupies.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the paging protocol and id provenance, which are the two things an agent cannot infer. Only limit and layer_id semantics are left to guesswork.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it explains cursor (pass next_cursor back) and where section_id comes from. layer_id and limit are left completely unexplained, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one section') and describes the payload ('what was detected, and the facts that prove it'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also separates itself from siblings by naming kb_list_layers, kb_search and kb_overview as the sources of section ids. It stops short of 5 because what a 'section' is within a layer is never clarified.

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?

Gives clear context for use: retrieve one section once you have its id, and obtain ids from kb_list_layers, kb_search or kb_overview. It also tells the agent how to continue paging. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative retrieval path is given, so it is not a 5.

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