ym_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a specific return format ('JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}'), which goes beyond the annotation. It also doesn't contradict any annotation and clarifies the safety field in the output. A strong addition for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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: a single purpose sentence, an arg explanation with example, and the return format. It's front-loaded with the most critical information, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter usage, and output format. It does not mention potential errors or pagination, but these are not critical for a listing operation. The inclusion of the output schema reference (though not shown) is handled by describing the return JSON structure, which is sufficient for an agent to interpret results.

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 input schema only lists 'section' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining what 'section' means (a section name), directing to ym_list_sections for valid values, and giving an example. This is valuable context that 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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('all endpoints in one section'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and differentiates from sibling tools like ym_get_campaigns and ym_list_sections by specifying the output scope.

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 instructs how to get a valid 'section' by referencing ym_list_sections and provides a concrete example ('statistics'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is clear that it's for browsing endpoint definitions, not for executing calls. This is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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