get_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the section doesn't exist), or performance aspects like response format or potential latency. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that accesses data.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the complexity of retrieving data from a document, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to be complete. It doesn't explain what the retrieved section contains (e.g., text, metadata), error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('memory_id' and 'section') with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific section from a memory document'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_full_memory' or 'get_memory_summary', which likely retrieve broader content from memory documents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing memory document, or compare it to siblings like 'get_full_memory' for retrieving entire documents or 'search_within_memory' for finding sections based on content.

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