wb_list_sections

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the counting behavior and audited by the 'catalog endpoints' phrase, but provides little beyond what annotations and the tool name convey; it does say it returns a list.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase earns its place. It states what is listed and the added beneficial detail of 'how many catalog endpoints' in two clauses without waste.

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?

A zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema. The description contains all the caller needs to know to select it, expect it to be non-mutating, and understand what it returns. The output schema preserves the return details from needing to be described here.

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 takes zero parameters and has 100% schema coverage, so parameter semantics are the baseline: the description does not need to explain parameters. Nothing is missing; no additional parameter usage context is required.

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 a specific verb, 'List', on a concrete resource, 'API sections', and adds precise output detail: 'how many catalog endpoints each contains.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like wb_get_section (singular section retrieval) and wb_search_methods (searching for methods).

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 use case is implied rather than stated: use this tool when you need to enumerate available API sections and see endpoint counts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools like wb_get_section or wb_map.

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