List IT Glue Document Sections

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details: results come in position order, list items carry summary fields with a bounded content_preview, and Gallery/Step items include document_gallery_id and images. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes: main behavior, key output details, special item behavior, and a pointer to the sibling for full content. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides the remaining context an agent needs: ordering, preview bounds, section ID purpose, gallery_id linkage for image creation, and when to call get_document_section instead. This is complete for a list operation.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it does clarify the shape of the returned items, which is helpful context. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'List the sections of a document in position order, with content previews and section IDs'. It also differentiates itself from itglue_get_document_section, which is for full content, and positions itself as the prerequisite for update/delete operations on sections.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to obtain section IDs for update/delete operations, and when to use the alternative: 'Use itglue_get_document_section for full content.' This gives the agent clear routing guidance against its sibling tools.

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