Get Article Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral context: default format, lossiness of markdown on structures like <pre> with <br> and tables with multi-<p> cells, and the danger of using markdown before update. No contradictions.

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 plus a clarifying parenthetical. Essential information (purpose, prerequisite, usage caveats) is front-loaded; details about lossy structures are provided without redundancy.

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?

Covers prerequisite, default behavior, and warnings. However, with no output schema, explicitly describing the return value (the section content in the requested format) would be beneficial. Minor gap for an otherwise complete description.

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 coverage is 100% with well-described properties. The description adds context about the default value of 'format' and lossy behavior, enriching the meaning beyond the schema. Minor improvement but not transformative.

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 'Retrieve the content of a single section of an article' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_article_outline (which discovers indices) and get_article (full article), avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use get_article_outline first to discover section indexes.' Provides conditional guidance: use default format='html' for round-trip safety 'only for human review' for markdown, and explicitly warns against round-tripping markdown back through update_article_section.

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