list-sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (title, use_cases, path, category) and workflow behavior, but lacks details on potential limitations like pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, returns, workflow, example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates necessary information.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context by detailing the return structure and workflow. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or limitations, though the lack of complexity keeps it adequate.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, as none are needed, and focuses on output semantics instead.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'all Macroforge documentation sections', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get-documentation' by focusing on listing sections rather than retrieving content.

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 WORKFLOW section provides explicit guidance: 'Call list-sections FIRST for any Macroforge-related task', followed by steps for analysis and calling 'get-documentation'. It clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, with a named sibling tool mentioned.

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