list_meeting_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts beyond that: a server version floor (17.4+) and that pagination is applied client-side because the endpoint is unpaginated server-side — which materially changes cost and offset expectations for the agent.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then the version prerequisite, then the pagination caveat. No filler, and the most consequential caveat is placed where it will be read before the call.

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 read-only, three-parameter list tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this covers everything needed to invoke correctly: what it returns (a list of sections), the version requirement, and pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 67% and already documents limit (capped at OPENPROJECT_MAX_PAGE_SIZE) and offset (1-based page, use next_offset). The description's client-side-pagination note adds real meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that offset/limit do not map to server-side paging. meeting_id remains undocumented but is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List sections of an OpenProject meeting.' An agent can immediately tell this is the collection-level read for meeting sections, distinct from get_meeting_section and list_meeting_agenda_items by name and scope. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 'Requires OpenProject 17.4+' line is a genuinely useful prerequisite that tells the agent when the call will fail, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_meeting_section or how meeting sections relate to agenda items. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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