list_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and lists exactly what information is returned. It does not mention file errors or ordering, but for a simple listing tool, the explicit 'Read-only' and scope are strong behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver the return fields, route to the correct mutation tools, and state read-only behavior. There is no redundancy or filler; the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only listing operation with one obvious file_path parameter and an output schema available. The description covers what is returned, read-only semantics, and alternative tools for modifications, which is complete enough for an agent to select and call 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the file_path parameter. It does not mention file_path at all. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 specifies the resource ('every section') and enumerates the exact properties returned: page width/height, orientation, margins, and header/footer references. It also distinguishes itself by naming set_section_properties and add_section_break as the tools for mutations, so an agent can tell it apart from those siblings.

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 tells the agent when not to use this tool: use set_section_properties for changing page geometry and add_section_break for creating new sections. The 'Read-only' statement further reinforces that this tool is for observation, not modification.

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