hh_get_section

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's remaining duty is to add context. It discloses the return shape ('JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}'), which is a useful signal, but says nothing about output size, rate limits, or that safety fields are pre-computed.

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 docstring-style Args/Returns layout is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the parameter, then the return shape. Every element is relevant, though the Args/Returns scaffolding is mildly verbose for a one-parameter tool.

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, single-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and child-section discovery adequately. The absence of any guidance on when this beats sibling retrieval tools is the main remaining gap.

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 carries the full burden for the single parameter, and it does compensate: it names the field ('section'), explains what a section is, points to a discovery tool, and gives a concrete example ('statistics'). It stops short of documenting format constraints (e.g. case sensitivity), keeping it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all endpoints in one section'), which is clearly narrower than the sibling hh_list_sections (which enumerates sections, not endpoints). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with routing-relevant siblings like hh_search_methods or hh_map, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 reference to '{svc}_list_sections' implies the workflow for discovering valid section names, giving implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hh_search_methods, hh_map, or hh_describe_method, and no exclusions.

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