vibo_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by specifying the exact per-section fields returned: id, name, scheduled time, note, song count, and progress. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail beyond the title.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource, examples, and return fields; the second adds actionable downstream guidance. Every element earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it identifies the input source, lists return fields, and explains how to use the output with sibling tools. No output schema exists, so the explicit field list is appropriately included.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter eventId, including the note that it comes from vibo_list_events. The description's mention of 'an event's timeline sections' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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' with a clear resource 'an event's timeline sections', provides concrete examples (Ceremony, First Dance, Dinner, Dancing), and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tools that consume the section _id.

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 explicit downstream usage guidance: 'Use a section _id with vibo_get_section_songs / vibo_add_song_to_section.' This tells an agent what to do after listing, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention negative cases. Context is clear, so it earns a 4.

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