Get IT Glue Document Section

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: HTML is the wire format, markdown output converts to plain text, inline images use relative paths that must be preserved verbatim, and the JSON record includes rendered_content with temporary S3 URLs. This tells the agent about content transformations and special fields the annotations alone would not reveal.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs several important caveats (image paths, verbatim preservation, rendered_content, S3 URLs) efficiently. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It covers the key operational gotchas: content format conversion, inline image path syntax, editing constraints, and the difference between markdown and JSON output. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the response_format behavior: markdown output is plain text and JSON output includes rendered_content with temporary S3 URLs. This gives practical detail about what the parameter values produce.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one document section with its full content'), clearly distinguishing this from listing multiple sections (itglue_list_document_sections) or fetching a whole document (itglue_get_document). The singular scope is explicit and immediately identifiable.

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 phrase 'Get one document section with its full content' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate—retrieving the full body of a single section—and implicitly differentiates it from list_document_sections and get_document. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5, but sufficient guidance is present.

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