ym_list_sections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds useful detail about the return scope: sections plus endpoint counts. It does not mention auth, network effects, or rate-limit behavior, but the annotation covers the safety profile adequately.

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 sentence fully conveys the tool's action and result shape with no wasted words. The core action 'List' is front-loaded, followed by the object and the count detail.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states the action, the resource, and the distinguishing output measurement. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool without further clarification.

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 has zero parameters and the schema covers all of them trivially, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing here reduces that score.

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 and resource: 'List API sections' and adds the detail 'how many catalog endpoints each contains,' which clarifies what the result includes. It distinguishes the tool from lookup-style siblings like ym_get_section and ym_describe_method, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as ym_map, ym_search_methods, or platform-specific list_sections variants. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints are provided.

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