crpt_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete return shape ({operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}), which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when a section name is invalid.

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 short functional lines plus an Args block — front-loaded with the purpose and no filler. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose relative to the tiny input, but every sentence carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, parameter provenance, and return fields. An output schema exists, so the return explanation is a bonus rather than a gap; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is required, so the description carries the burden. It does compensate well by defining the parameter ('section name'), pointing to the tool that produces valid values, and giving a concrete example ('statistics').

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 ('List all endpoints in one section'), which clearly separates it from crpt_list_sections (sections) and crpt_describe_method (a single method). Sibling differentiation is implied through the reference to the sections tool rather than stated outright, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives practical guidance for the required arg — see {svc}_list_sections to obtain valid section names — and an example value. However, it never says when to prefer this over crpt_search_methods, crpt_map, or crpt_fetch_all, and there are no exclusion conditions.

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