get_related_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it returns two categories of neighbors, uses cosine similarity, and supports a mode parameter. No contradictions.

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) yet conveys the core functionality, modes, and key parameters without any 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the main outputs (structural and semantic neighbors) and thresholds. It lacks details on the response format (e.g., whether it returns section IDs or full objects) but is otherwise adequate given the complexity.

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 description explains 'mode' (structural/semantic/both), 'top_n' (top-N), and 'min_score' (score threshold). However, 'max_per_kind', 'repo', and 'section_id' are not elaborated. With 0% schema coverage, this partial explanation is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 specifies the tool retrieves structural neighbors (siblings, children, parent, optional cousins) and semantic neighbors (top-N cosine with score threshold). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'section_neighbors' by explicitly naming modes and neighbor types.

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 implies usage (when needing related sections) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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