Get Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the return format (Markdown) and the downstream handoff (section_hash for replace_section), which is genuinely useful chain context beyond structured fields. It doesn't cover failure modes such as an out-of-range index.

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, zero padding. The core operation and its boundary semantics come first, with the return-format and replace_section handoff second.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it names the one value that matters downstream (section_hash) and the serialization (Markdown). Only edge-case behavior (invalid index, empty sections) is unaddressed.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by defining what a 'section' is at the heading level, which explains how the index parameter should be interpreted. The page parameter's accepted id/URL forms are left to the 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one section of a page) plus the exact boundary rule — heading plus everything until the next same-or-higher heading, subsections included. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_page (whole page) and get_page_outline (structure only).

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 links to the workflow: it returns section_hash for replace_section, and the schema ties index to get_page_outline. It doesn't state when to prefer get_page over this tool, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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