get_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently explains how figures appear as `` links and how to fetch them with `get_image`, details LaTeX formula formatting (standalone vs. inline), describes version handling (first-use download/conversion), and reveals pagination behavior (default 200 lines). It does not cover error cases or what happens for invalid sections, but the behavioral disclosure is rich and helpful.

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 a single paragraph of ~150 words, dense but well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose and sibling distinction, then covers output format, version handling, and pagination. While it could benefit from bullet points or more whitespace for scanning, every sentence adds value and there is no repetition. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, output format (figures, formulas), version behavior, and pagination. It does not describe error handling (e.g., invalid section/spec) or the exact structure of the return value, but it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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 100% (all 7 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: e.g., for `section_number` it gives an example ('5.1.2'), for `version` it explains the first-use download behavior, and for `offset`/`max_lines` it contextualizes pagination. This additional context improves parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get the markdown content of a specific section in a 3GPP specification.' It also specifies the type of content (architecture, procedures, requirements) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `get_openapi` for API details. The verb 'get' and resource 'section' are specific and unambiguous.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool vs. `get_openapi` for API details. It advises to call `list_versions` first to check available versions and explains pagination with offset and max_lines. This explicit context helps the agent choose the correct tool and navigate parameters effectively.

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