get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral value: the returned payload embeds precondition/postcondition steps rather than a flat section object. It says nothing about permissions, how archived sections behave when isDeleted is false, or error cases.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing information (the embedded steps) is placed immediately after the core action. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It leaves gaps around what a 'section' is in this domain, how nested steps are shaped, and the archived-section path, which matter given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so both parameters (id, isDeleted) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or defaulting semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 sentence pairs a specific verb (Get) with a specific resource (section) and adds a distinguishing detail: the response includes precondition/postcondition steps. That detail separates it from a bare section fetch, though it never names a sibling like get_shared_step or get_test_suite, so there is no explicit differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over get_shared_step, get_test_suite, or the create/delete/rename/move section siblings. The read-only intent is only inferable from the verb 'Get' and the annotations, not from stated guidance.

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