ym_get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a JSON list with specific fields, but provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this makes a network call versus reading local metadata.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section and return format are concise, with no filler or redundant information.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It documents the parameter source and return fields; the main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related lookup tools.

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 only describes 'section' as a string, so the description adds essential meaning by explaining it is a section name, pointing to list_sections for valid values, and giving an example. The use of the placeholder {svc} instead of the concrete 'ym' prefix is slightly ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.

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 clear action and resource: list all endpoints in a section. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ym_list_sections (lists sections) and ym_describe_method (describes one method) by specifying scope.

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 usage context is only implied by 'List all endpoints in one section.' It references {svc}_list_sections for finding valid section names, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like ym_search_methods or ym_map, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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