list_by_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and gives parameter examples, but does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid section names), potential side effects, pagination, or authorization requirements. The behavior is treated as a black box, which is insufficient for a tool without structured annotation support.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the main statement in the first line and the parameter explanation following. The bilingual Chinese translation is redundant but not harmful. It earns a high score for efficiency, slightly reduced by the unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter. However, it lacks context about how section names are defined, what happens when a section is empty, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. These gaps make it only minimally complete for a tool in a family of similar operations.

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 provides only a type for the 'section' parameter, but the description supplies critical context with examples ('获取股票数据', '获取融资融券标的列表') and clarifies it is a section name. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, giving the agent a concrete sense of valid values.

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: 'List all API functions in a specific documentation section.' It identifies the verb ('list'), resource ('API functions'), and scope ('specific documentation section'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_functions' or 'search_in_section', though the section-scoping is implicit.

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 'search_in_section' or 'lookup_function'. It only states what the tool does, with no exclusions or contextual triggers. This absence of usage direction leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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