get_hda_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing operation, but it does not explain what a section is, whether the result is names or metadata, what kinds of errors may occur, or how HDA definitions are resolved from node_path.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and contains almost no filler. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not obscure the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description is still incomplete: the semantics of node_path are undefined, the return shape is unspecified, and there is no guidance tying it to HDA definition workflows. An agent would have to guess how to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'node_path: Node path' merely restates the parameter name and title. It does not specify whether the path points to an HDA node, a definition, or a library entry, nor does it describe expected path formats or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('sections'), and scope ('all sections in an HDA definition'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hda_section_content (which targets content rather than the section list) and get_hda_info, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hda_section_content, get_hda_info, or list_installed_hdas. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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