get_meeting_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the OpenProject 17.6+ version prerequisite and the downstream relationship to agenda items, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by the version prerequisite. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, version requirement and follow-up tool. Minor gap: no explicit contrast with the other meeting-level getters in the sibling list.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Meeting section id, from list_meeting_sections.' The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format, source or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get a single meeting section by id') plus the exact fields returned (title, position, backlog flag). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_meeting_sections, though that sibling is not named directly.

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?

Gives clear retrieval context: the id comes from list_meeting_sections, and the section's agenda items are fetched via list_meeting_agenda_items. This routes the agent through the right workflow, though it does not state when to prefer get_meeting_section over get_meeting or get_meeting_agenda_item.

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