get_section_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and implies a safe read via 'Get', but says nothing about pagination, response format, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the usage hint follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter read tool the definition is nearly sufficient: it covers purpose, return contents, and usage context. The lack of an output schema and absence of any annotation or behavioral detail around pagination/auth leaves a small but real gap.

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 100%, with both 'section' and 'language' fully documented in the schema (including examples and the 'en' default). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a quick overview of a section') and enumerates the returned data (page count, word count, page titles), which implicitly separates it from page-level siblings like read_architect_page_summary. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('useful for orientation before exporting or reading individual pages'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it names no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the routing decision between this and list_architect_sections/read_architect_page_summary is left partly to inference.

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