ms_get_section

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with both. It adds behavioral value by stating that it returns 'all endpoints' and by documenting the exact return item shape ({operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}). It doesn't cover error behavior for unknown sections, but that's a minor gap for a simple read-only listing.

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 front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, an Args line, and a Returns line. There is no redundant prose, and the example is directly useful rather than decorative.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameter derivation, and return shape. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the sibling reference handles the only source of ambiguity.

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 has no description for the 'section' parameter (0% schema coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It does this well: it defines 'section' as a section name, points to ms_list_sections as the source of valid values, and gives a concrete example ('statistics'). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 ('List'), resource ('endpoints'), and scope ('one section'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ms_list_sections (which lists sections) and ms_search_methods (which searches). The example and reference to ms_list_sections reinforce exactly what the tool operates on.

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 makes the primary use case clear: call this when you need all endpoints within a named section. It also gives practical guidance by pointing to ms_list_sections for valid section names and providing a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly discuss when to prefer ms_search_methods, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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