List sections

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

The description highlights offset pagination, a behavioral detail beyond the tool's name. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error cases, auth requirements, or response behavior—leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, the resource scope, and a key behavior (offset pagination) in a concise and well-structured manner.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description adequately identifies the operation and pagination but does not describe the return format, default fields, or how pagination responses are structured. While it is sufficient for a simple list operation, it leaves some contextual gaps for an agent needing to parse responses.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'offset pagination,' which reinforces the purpose of the offset parameter, but this is minimal and largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Offset returned by a previous list_sections call').

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List sections in an Asana project with offset pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('sections in an Asana project'), and uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks and list_projects, which cover different resources.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it lists sections within a specific Asana project. Although it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tool names (get_task, list_tasks, etc.) confirm there is no other section-listing tool, making the usage context clear.

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