zim_get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers richly: it discloses include_subsections behavior, compact mode's placeholder/stripping effects, compact_budget being inert, and error payloads with available_section_ids and closest_match. This goes well beyond a generic fetch description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into aliases, parameters, response, and errors. It is lengthy but every section and sentence earns its place by adding guidance an agent needs to call the tool successfully.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains response shape, error behavior, parameter nuances, and the prerequisite TOC lookup. Nothing critical is left for the agent to guess.

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 must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains section_id as a TOC id, compact as the zim_get compact=True shape, compact_budget as inert, and include_subsections as stopping at the next heading. Every parameter is given practical meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one named section of an article' by section_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like zim_get (likely whole-article fetch) and zim_search. The aliases reinforce the intended scope without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: extract the section id first using zim_get(view='toc') if not supplied, and route natural-language section requests through this tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'use zim_get for whole articles', so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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