vibo_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (id, name, scheduled time, note, song count, progress) meaningfully discloses the response shape. It omits pagination/size behavior and any auth scope, which keeps it from a 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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and what comes back, the second handles the id-chaining. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers both the returned fields and the next-step tool usage, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of noting result ordering, limits, or permissions, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents eventId ("Event id (from vibo_list_events)"). The description only implies the event scope; it adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list an event's timeline sections) and enumerates what each item contains (id, name, scheduled time, note, song count, progress). This clearly separates it from siblings like vibo_get_section_songs or vibo_list_events, which an agent can distinguish without opening a schema.

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?

"Use a section _id with vibo_get_section_songs / vibo_add_song_to_section" names the concrete follow-on tools and the reason to call this one (to obtain section ids). It gives clear chaining context but states no exclusions or conditions under which a different listing tool would be preferred.

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