get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get a section by ID' truthfully indicates a read operation but adds no detail about return format, error behavior, or read-only guarantees. It is not misleading, but it provides only the minimal behavioral info inherent in the verb.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. Every token contributes meaning: 'Get' states the action, 'section' the resource, and 'by ID' the lookup method. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers the core operation, but it leaves an agent to infer what a 'section' is and what the response will contain. For a basic get-by-ID, this is minimally sufficient, but it lacks any richer context about output or error cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents the single 'section_id' parameter. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a section by ID' uses a specific verb (get), resource (section), and lookup key (ID), making it clear this is a single-resource read. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from the plural sibling get_sections, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sections, add_section, update_section, or delete_section. There is no explicit exclusions or conditions; the only implied usage is 'when you have a section ID', which is not stated as guidance.

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