gavaza_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals that the tool lists sections and that slug filters to one section, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format, relying on the output schema for return details.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates the sections for clarity, and the second explains the optional filtering. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and filtering behavior. However, the absence of explicit slug value enumeration and usage guidance relative to siblings leaves the invocation potentially ambiguous, especially given no annotations.

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 schema provides no description for the 'slug' parameter, and the description explains that slug optionally prints only one section, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's string/null type. Yet it does not specify the accepted slug values or format, only listing section names in the main description.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'additional POPIA sections', enumerating the exact categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gavaza_conditions or gavaza_gdpr_map, which serve different functions.

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 implies usage for retrieving these specific POPIA sections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gavaza_conditions or mhangani_checklist. There is no exclusion or alternative mention, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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