Onenote List Sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; never mutates any state,' which is important and accurate. It also clarifies the exact identifier format returned. Since this is a simple zero-parameter listing tool, this level of transparency is adequate, though it does not discuss pagination or size limits.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the crucial canonical-id detail and safety guarantee. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing operation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, why the format matters, the tool it feeds, and the non-mutating guarantee. No missing context blocks correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description adds useful meaning about what the returned output contains—canonical ids for every notebook/section pair—and emphasizes the critical id format. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every OneNote notebook/section pair with its canonical ids.' It also clearly distinguishes the tool's output by emphasizing the `{GUID}{1}{B0}` sectionId form required by `onenote_create_page`, setting it apart from searching or fetching page content.

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 actionable context by explaining that this tool yields the canonical sectionId needed by `onenote_create_page`, and warns that a bare GUID or section name will never resolve. It does not explicitly tell when not to use it or name alternatives like `onenote_search`, but the routing information is clear enough for the primary use case.

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