vk_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that section names originate from the sibling list tool and sketches the return fields, but does not describe pagination, error behavior, or ordering.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by a short Args block and a one-line Returns. Every element earns its place, though the Returns line partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is not strictly needed, but the description still supplies the key calling context (where section names come from, an example value). For a single-parameter read tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it identifies the parameter, explains it is a section name sourced from {svc}_list_sections, and gives a concrete example ('statistics'). It stops short of describing invalid-section behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all endpoints in one section'), which is clear and distinguishable from vk_list_sections (lists sections, not endpoints) and vk_describe_method. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, keeping it just below a 5.

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 gives implied usage by pointing to {svc}_list_sections for obtaining a valid section name, which is genuinely useful routing. However, it never states when to prefer this over vk_search_methods or vk_describe_method, and no exclusions are given.

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