read_sections

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 only states 'Read selected sections' without disclosing what happens if a section is missing, how sections are matched, or any other behavioral details. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no wasted or redundant content.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to fully guide usage. It does not clarify the expected format of sections, the relationship between url and page content, or any prerequisites. The low parameter semantics and lack of behavioral guidance make this incomplete for a new user.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'selected sections' but does not explain what the `url` parameter is for beyond implying it points to a page, nor what the `sections` array should contain (e.g., heading names, slugs). The description adds minimal semantic value.

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 a specific action ('Read selected sections') on a resource ('chezmoi documentation page'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_documentation (which likely reads a whole page) and search_documentation.

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?

Usage is implied: the description and sibling names suggest this tool is for reading specific sections rather than entire pages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this vs read_documentation, or how sections should be identified.

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