asana_list_sections

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

The annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: true, so the description correctly aligns with those by describing a read operation. Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned field set (name + GID) and the fact that results are ordered 'in board order'. This goes beyond what the annotation flags communicate, hence the high-4 score; however, it does not mention pagination or a default limit, which would make it fully transparent.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately names the action and the resource. It front-loads the primary intent ('List the sections') and appends the read elements returned (name + GID) and the ordering (board order). Every segment carries meaning; there is no fluff or repetition of what the title already exprtes.

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 tool is a simple list operation with only two parameters, and the description covers the primary output property (name + GID) and ordering information, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, given no output schema exists, it could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the return (e.g., multiple section objects) or whether it requires authentication on the project. But with the annotations already covering the read-only and idempotent safety profile, the description is adequate and almost complete, missing only minor details.

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%, meaning both parameters (project_gid and opt_fields) have schema-level descriptions, including a detailed explanation of opt_fields and the fact that project_gid is the project's GID. Since the description adds no parameter-specific facts beyond the schema, it is sufficient at the baseline level. The description gives high-level context about what the tool does but leaves parameter meaning to the schema, which is a fair balance for a list tool with only two parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List the sections of a project', making it obvious the tool retrieves sections that belong to a specific project by GID. It calls out the output shape (name + GID) and ordering ('board order'), which sets it apart from sibling tools such as asana_create_section, asana_update_section, or asana_delete_section that mutate section data. An agent can easily differentiate this read operation from its non-read siblings without inspecting any schemas.

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 establishes usage context (listing sections of a project) but offers no explicit guidance on when *not* to use this tool or how to choose it over alternative tools. The title 'List sections' and the verb 'List' somewhat implies it is for read-only retrieval, but it does not name sibling alternatives or specify conditions that would justify using a different function. This is an implied guideline at best, not an explicit one, so it sits at the mid-range.

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