describe_section

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses version requirement (v1.54+), consolidation behavior (saving round-trips), and states 'No content reads,' implying read-only. However, it does not explicitly mention authentication needs or error handling, though it provides a solid behavioral overview.

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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key benefit. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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 description specifies the components returned (metadata, breadcrumb, neighbors) but lacks details on the return value structure, such as field names or data types. Without an output schema, an agent might need more concrete guidance on what to expect, but the high-level listing is adequate for most contexts.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (repo and section_id). The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; it merely reiterates that these inputs are required for the consolidated bundle. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it returns full metadata, ancestor breadcrumb, and neighbors for a section in a single consolidated call. It distinguishes from siblings like get_section_summary, get_section_path, and section_neighbors by noting it saves three round-trips.

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 explicitly says 'Saves three round-trips vs calling get_section_summary + get_section_path + section_neighbors separately.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (when all three pieces are needed) and implies alternatives for partial data. It also notes 'No content reads,' which hints at the non-destructive nature.

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