get_section_subnets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default result limit (20), the maximum limit (100), and the default behavior for include_usage and include_fields. It does not mention error conditions or the meaning of 'essential only' fields, but for a read operation this is substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' note, and a concise args list. Every line adds information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, parameters, and defaults. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives or error handling, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: section_id identifies the section, include_usage includes usage stats, include_fields is a comma-separated list with default 'essential only', and limit controls the maximum number of subnets (default 20, max 100). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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: 'Get subnets within a specific section.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings like search_subnets (which searches across sections) and get_subnet_details (which retrieves a single subnet).

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 clear context on usage: it requires a section_id and notes the default limit of 20 results with the ability to control output via the limit parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the first sentence implies the appropriate scenario (when you have a specific section ID).

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