get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context about activeness scoping — both which chunks are returned ('active') and the project-activation prerequisite — but says nothing about error behavior when a chunk isn't active or how many chunks come back.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scoping constraint second. No filler, though the activeness rule could be phrased slightly more explicitly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 4-parameter chunk-retrieval tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the context-window parameters and the meaning of 'active' undefined, which an agent may need.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers: it explains the project_id activation rule and implies adjacency via 'adjacent' chunks, but never names context_before/context_after or their default of 1, and gives no meaning for chunk_id beyond the obvious.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a selected chunk and adjacent active chunks from the same document'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It contrasts implicitly with search_docs by being a single-chunk retrieval, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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 second sentence gives a real precondition ('project sections require that project to be active or passed explicitly'), which tells the agent when project_id matters. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_docs or other siblings, so usage is implied rather than instructed.

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