help

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 discloses that unknown section values return a list of valid section names instead of erroring, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other important traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description adds some transparency but is not exhaustive.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a list to enumerate sections and provides a note about behavior for unknown sections. There is no unnecessary repetition or verbose language. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing the second sentence about driving the evaluator, though that provides context.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal indicates true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main functionality and edge case (unknown section). However, it does not describe what each section contains beyond the name, which might leave an agent uncertain about which section to query. The sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion there. The description is adequate but could be more complete with brief explanations of each section's content.

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 schema coverage for the parameter 'section' is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that the parameter should be one of the four listed sections (types, language, functions, solver) and that unknown values will return a list of valid names. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema, which only defines the parameter as a string with no constraints.

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 that the tool returns reference text for one of four specific sections (types, language, functions, solver), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze, calculate, info, and solver. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('reference text for one section') and provides a clear list of valid sections.

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 implies usage when reference documentation is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when to call help vs info). It also lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. The mention of returning a list for unknown sections is helpful but does not provide comprehensive usage guidelines.

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