get_section_by_title

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

With no annotations, the description must fully describe behavior. It states only the basic action, omitting details like whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the title is missing or duplicates exist, or any side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description should at least indicate the return value (e.g., 'Returns the section object') and error behavior. It lacks these essential details, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('RFCDocument' and 'Section title'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not excel.

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 'Get a section by its title' clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (section), and lookup method (by title). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_sections or set_section_by_title, though it does not specify what is returned (e.g., section content or metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sections or get_toc. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions (e.g., section not found), or typical use cases.

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