list_sections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Returns essential fields only by default' and how to request complete data. This is beyond what the schema alone conveys, though it omits other details like authentication or pagination, which are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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 concise, with the purpose stated upfront, followed by a clear 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' note and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without fluff, making it well-structured for quick reading.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the default field behavior, and how to get all fields. It could be slightly more detailed about what 'essential fields' are, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?

The schema only defines include_fields as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining it accepts comma-separated fields, defaults to essential fields only, and can be set to 'all' for complete data. This is essential context for using the parameter correctly.

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 'List all IP sections from phpIPAM', which is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope (all sections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vlans, list_vrfs, and list_locations, which target different resources.

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 the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_section_subnets or search_subnets. It gives guidance on the include_fields parameter ('Use include_fields="all" for complete data') but no direct comparison or exclusion statements.

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