vk_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the return format (JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}) and the read-only behavior of listing endpoints. It does not mention auth or error handling, but for a simple read operation the core behavior is transparent and consistent with the annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clearly labeled argument with example, and a return type specification. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail the return structure beyond mentioning the fields, which it does. It also covers the prerequisite (section names) and the parameter meaning. It omits edge cases like empty sections, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the section parameter, so the description fully compensates by explaining its meaning ('section name'), providing an example ('statistics'), and directing the user to vk_list_sections for valid values. This is exactly what an agent needs to supply the correct argument.

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') and resource ('endpoints') with a clear scope ('one section'), and it references vk_list_sections for valid section names, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list sections or search methods. It unambiguously conveys the tool's function.

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 a prerequisite by pointing to vk_list_sections for section names, which implies a usage step, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like vk_search_methods or explain when to prefer this tool over others. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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