get_section_content_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions 'ordered text chunks' but does not explain ordering criteria, pagination behavior (offset/limit not mentioned), error handling for invalid node_id, or response format. Missing key behavioral traits for a content retrieval tool.

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 sentences covering purpose, usage, and caution. No redundancy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for when-to-use and behavior). Overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, behavior details are partially covered. However, the description lacks explanation for optional parameters and does not differentiate from sibling get_next_chunks_tool. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description must compensate. It explains node_id's origin but does not explain the meaning or usage of offset, limit, or document parameters. Offset and limit are critical for pagination but left undocumented.

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 'Get', the resource 'ordered text chunks', and the context 'chapter or section node in an indexed PDF'. It distinguishes from sibling search_pdf_context_tool by specifying when to prefer this tool over search.

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 states when to use: when node_id is known from list_chapters or list_structure. Provides a when-not: 'Do not use without a valid node_id from this document's structure tree.' Also suggests preference over search for sequential content at a known location.

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