list_document_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only, non-destructive action through 'List' and 'read document content,' and discloses the ordering guarantee ('in order'). It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple list operation the disclosure is adequate.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the usage hint occupies the second sentence without redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It names the resource, the action, the ordering behavior, and the recommended usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single parameter 'document_id' is already documented as 'The document ID.' The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('List all sections') on a specific resource ('an IT Glue document') and adds the ordering detail 'in order.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_document_folders and get_document.

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 'Use this to read document content before editing' gives clear, actionable guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended pre-edit read context is explicit.

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