get_related_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating 'Returns...', but lacks details on idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects, or prerequisites like repository indexing. The description adds some context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The structure is front-loaded with the version note ('v2.0+') which could be considered extraneous but does not detract significantly.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter or to sufficiently differentiate this tool from others like section_neighbors. The agent may not understand how to correctly set top_n or min_score without additional context.

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. However, it only explains the 'mode' parameter ('structural | semantic | both'). The other five parameters (repo, section_id, top_n, min_score, max_per_kind) are left unexplained, leaving the agent to rely solely on names and defaults.

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 that this tool returns structural and semantic neighbors of a section, using specific terms like siblings, children, parent, and cosine similarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like section_neighbors, though the mention of v2.0+ and mode options hints at its unique capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as section_neighbors or find_similar_sections. It only explains the internal modes (structural, semantic, both), which is helpful for within-tool usage but not for tool selection.

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