diadoc_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the output schema already defines the returned fields, so the description's enumeration of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary} largely repeats structured data. It adds nothing about ordering, pagination, or size limits that isn't already covered elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args and Returns block. Slightly boilerplate but every line is short and no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the argument source and the safety profile is carried by annotations and return shape by the output schema. Only the absence of any usage routing between sibling discovery tools keeps it short of full completeness.

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%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, naming it as a 'section name', pointing at the sibling that enumerates valid values, and giving a concrete example ('statistics'). That meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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: lists all endpoints belonging to one section. This is distinguishable from the sibling diadoc_list_sections (which lists the sections themselves), though the description never explicitly names that contrast.

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?

It implies a discovery workflow by pointing to {svc}_list_sections for valid section names, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as diadoc_search_methods or diadoc_describe_method, nor any exclusion conditions.

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