vibo_list_sections

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds specific behavioral context by listing the returned fields (id, name, scheduled time, note, song count, progress) and providing examples, going beyond the annotation. No contradictions detected.

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 just two sentences: the first states the purpose and output fields, the second gives downstream usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields, making the data shape clear. The single parameter is documented in the schema, and the usage guidance links to related tools. For a simple read-only list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter eventId, including its source (from vibo_list_events), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond implying the event context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('an event's timeline sections') with concrete examples (Ceremony, First Dance). It enumerates the output fields and explicitly references sibling tools (vibo_get_section_songs, vibo_add_song_to_section), distinguishing it from other listing tools.

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 provides explicit guidance for next steps: 'Use a section _id with vibo_get_section_songs / vibo_add_song_to_section.' It also implies a workflow chain from vibo_list_events to this tool via the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other list tools.

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