sbis_get_section

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

The description explains the return format ('Returns JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}'), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies the input parameter's source, adding context. No contradictions with annotations. It does not describe error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then an 'Args' section with parameter explanation, and a 'Returns' section with the output format. Every sentence contributes value, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 a defined output, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, how to obtain the parameter, and what the result looks like. It references sbis_list_sections as a prerequisite, which completes the usage context. Nothing critical is missing.

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 sole parameter 'section' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates fully by specifying it is a section name, referencing sbis_list_sections for valid values, and providing an example ('statistics'). This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of the parameter.

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 clearly states the action 'List all endpoints in one section' with a specific resource (section). It distinguishes from siblings like sbis_list_sections, which lists sections, and sbis_search_methods, which searches methods. The verb-resource pairing is 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 provides usage guidance by referencing 'see sbis_list_sections' to obtain valid section names and gives an example ('statistics'). It implies that this tool is for enumerating endpoints in a specific section, but it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or provide exclusions. Still, the reference to the sister tool is a clear contextual pointer.

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