wb_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read-only operation), so the description doesn't need to emphasize that. It adds context about the return format (a JSON list with specific fields) and the need to consult list_sections, which is useful but doesn't cover additional nuances like pagination or large sections. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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: three short sentences plus an Args section and a Returns line. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a clear structure for the single argument and return type. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has only one parameter)Skip; the description covers its semantics via a reference to list_sections. The output schema is present, so the return format doesn't need elaboration beyond the description's summary. Annotations cover safety and open-world assumptions. This is a simple discovery tool, and the description is complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It does explain that 'section' is the section name and references the list_sections tool for valid values, which is better than the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide explicit examples except one, which is minimal but sufficient for a single-string 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 tool lists all endpoints in a given section, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by showing the output structure (operation_id, method, path, safety, summary) and referencing the section naming convention from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly says the section name should come from the corresponding list_sections tool, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives like search_methods or describe_method, though the sibling similarity is implied.

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