list_property_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'List all available property sections,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say there are no side effects, require no special permissions, or describe the output format beyond implying section_name_id is available. It adds minimal behavioral context, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and followed by a concrete use case. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what it does and why you'd use it. However, it does not fully describe the output structure (e.g., all fields returned, whether it's an array), so it relies on the user to infer that the output contains section_name_id. Slight gap, but acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter coverage to worry about. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'section_name_id' as an output value, but it does not need to explain parameter meanings since none exist. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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's function: "List all available property sections." It uses a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (property sections), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_script_folders or list_datasource_types. The addition of "Use this to get section_name_id when creating properties" explicitly pins its role in a workflow.

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 a direct use case: "Use this to get section_name_id when creating properties." This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but given the tool's unique purpose among siblings, this is clear enough.

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