get_wikipedia_page_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets a list' and is 'useful for' large pages, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing parameter semantics or behavioral aspects to be fully comprehensive.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are provided in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning about the parameters, such as explaining 'page_title' or 'language' usage. Since there are parameters but no compensation in the description, it meets the baseline for minimal viability without enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of the sections on a Wikipedia Page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sections on a Wikipedia Page'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections_info', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'when a page on wikipedia is too large and the LLM can query for the available sections to it to get only necessary information.' This explains the tool's utility in handling large pages by listing sections for targeted queries. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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