wb_get_section

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List all endpoints' is consistent with that. The description adds value by specifying the exact return format: 'JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}'. This goes beyond the annotation and provides concrete expectations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but given the read-only annotation, this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence main purpose, an Args block, and a Returns line. It front-loads the core functionality and then provides parameter guidance and output format without any redundant text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (indicated as present), the description covers the purpose, how to obtain the parameter, and the return structure. It does not explain the 'safety' field, but that is likely covered by the output schema. It also omits error handling details, which is acceptable for a read-only listing operation. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for the 'section' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the parameter is a section name, referencing wb_list_sections for valid values, and giving an example ('statistics'). This provides the necessary semantic context that the bare string type in the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and a clear resource 'endpoints in one section', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like wb_list_sections (which lists sections) and wb_describe_method (which describes a single method). It also provides a concrete example of a section name, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly references wb_list_sections as the source for valid section names, which is a clear prerequisite and guides the user on how to obtain the parameter value. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context of the family makes it evident that this tool is for exploring a section's endpoints rather than a specific method. The guidance is implicit but sufficient.

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