get_sections

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists sections and provides format details (times in minutes-from-midnight, Thursday 'H'), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or if data is paginated.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and contents, the second adds format clarification. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly smoother.

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 no output schema, the description should cover return structure. It mentions fields (meeting times, instructors, open status) but not the structure (e.g., list of objects). It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for expecting exact output.

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. It mentions 'course' and 'term' but does not explain the format of course_string (e.g., 'CS101') or that term is optional and accepts integer or null. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists sections for a course in a term, specifying meeting times, instructors, and open status. The verb 'list' and resource 'sections' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_course (which likely gets course info) or search_courses (which searches).

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 implies usage when section details are needed for a course, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fill_stats or get_prereq_tree. There is no statement of when not to use or what prerequisites are needed.

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