describe_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 usefully adds that it performs 'No content reads' and specifies the bundle of data returned. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about pagination or failure behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the version note and defines the returned bundle, the second justifies the tool against its alternatives. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (metadata, breadcrumb, neighbors). A minor gap remains around ordering/limits of the neighbor set, but for a read-only two-parameter tool this is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, with both repo and section_id documented in the schema (including the v1.147+ anchor/reference mode and its ambiguity fields). The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (one section) and enumerates exactly what the call returns: full metadata, ancestor breadcrumb, and prev/next/parent/first_child neighbors. It explicitly contrasts with the three sibling tools it replaces (get_section_summary + get_section_path + section_neighbors), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives ('vs calling get_section_summary + get_section_path + section_neighbors separately') and gives the reason to prefer this tool: it saves three round-trips. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when the narrower single-purpose tools are still preferable).

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