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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact scope ('List all endpoints') and the returned JSON field shape, which is useful but does not go into behavioral detail like pagination, error handling, or auth requirements. This matches the lower bar set by the annotations with modest added context.

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 purpose is front-loaded, parameters are formatted clearly, and the return type is stated in one line. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the input, how to obtain a valid input, and the return shape. It could be slightly more explicit about invalid or empty sections, but the low complexity makes this a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by explaining that section is a section name, tells the agent to look up valid values via crpt_list_sections, and supplies a concrete example. This is more than enough for a single parameter.

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 first sentence, 'List all endpoints in one section,' names a specific verb and resource and clearly scopes the operation to a section. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like crpt_list_sections (sections, not endpoints) and crpt_search_methods (search, not list-all).

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 gives clear usage context by directing the agent to crpt_list_sections for valid section names and provides a concrete example ('statistics'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple case.

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