get_page_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-destructive behavior is clear. The description adds the output context ('section headers') but no additional behavioral details (e.g., ordering, pagination). Given strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does and returns. It doesn't document edge cases or output format, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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 full description for the single 'slug' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds that the tool lists 'all section headers', implying the output but not adding extra parameter semantics. Baseline is met.

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 retrieves 'all section headers in an article', with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('section headers'), and context ('in an article'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_page_section' (singular) and 'get_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 implies usage for listing section headers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_section' or 'get_page_content'. No when-not-to-use or pre-conditions are stated.

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