konsulto_read_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning markdown, accepting aliases, and server-side mapping. It could explicitly state it's read-only, but the verb 'Read' implies no side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose, examples, differentiation, parameter hint. No wasted words.

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 (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains return format (markdown), alias behavior, and when to use. No gaps remain.

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 description adds meaning to the 'section' parameter by listing aliases (summary, recommendations, etc.) beyond the schema's canonical list. For 'findingId', it adds no extra info, but schema coverage is 50% and the description compensates well for section.

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 reads 'just one section of a finding's body as markdown' and gives concrete examples ('explain the POC', 'summarize the impact'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling konsulto_get_finding by highlighting cost savings.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'when the user only cares about one section', and contrasts with the more expensive alternative konsulto_get_finding. Also implies when not to use (when multiple sections needed).

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