rsap_list_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 for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the model is unmodified, nor does it mention any other behavioral details such as ordering or uniqueness of returned names. It is minimally adequate but adds no context beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It states exactly what information is provided (names of section labels) and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. No additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits any parameter details. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and no compensation is needed.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('the names of section labels defined in the model'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools such as rsap_list_nodes, rsap_list_bars, and rsap_list_load_cases, which target different entities.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident for a list operation, and the sibling context implies that this is the go-to tool for viewing section labels. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it stops at implied usage.

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