diadoc_get_section

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds scoping information ('one section') plus the return format. There is no contradiction with annotations, but deeper behavior such as error handling, pagination, or auth requirements is not disclosed.

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 description is compact and well-structured: one lead sentence, a one-line parameter explanation, and a return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool, the description includes the operation, parameter provenance, and return shape. It is mostly complete, though it could additionally mention behavior for an unknown section or any auth dependency shared across the sibling set.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for the section parameter. It explains that section is a section name, points to diadoc_list_sections for valid values, and provides 'statistics' as an example, which is more meaningful than the bare schema property.

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 description opens with a specific verb and object: 'List all endpoints in one section.' It clearly delimits the scope to a single section and references diadoc_list_sections, which helps distinguish it from the sibling that lists sections themselves.

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 purpose statement makes the intended use case obvious, and the Args note tells the agent to obtain section names via diadoc_list_sections, giving a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over other sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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