diadoc_list_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds only that each section is annotated with its catalog endpoint count, which is useful shaping but not non-obvious behavior beyond the output schema.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with the endpoint-count detail appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level and needs no return-value documentation. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. No syntax, defaults, or formats are needed.

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 (list) and resource (API sections) and clarifies the payload includes an endpoint count per section. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling diadoc_get_section, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is a browsing/list operation and the description hints at a discovery role by reporting endpoint counts, but it does not say when to reach for this versus diadoc_get_section or diadoc_search_methods, nor mention any prerequisites.

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