sections_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't say whether sections are returned in document order, whether it covers only a subset (e.g., not the body), or what happens with zero-section documents. The attribute enumeration is content, not behavior, so the description adds little beyond the annotation.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler; the attribute list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the list-within-sentence construct makes it denser than ideal for scanning, which is a minor structural weakness.

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 a simple one-parameter read with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what is returned but omits any framing (item count, ordering, relationship to the document body). It is minimally adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape in the absence of an output schema.

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% — the single 'doc' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Path to the .docx.' The description contributes no additional parameter meaning. When the schema fully documents parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (each section's page setup) and enumerates the specific attributes returned (break type, title page, even/odd headers, page numbering, header/footer addresses). However, it never states the verb — that it lists/returns these for all sections — and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like layout_get or info, which could plausibly also return section-level layout data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no alternatives named. With siblings like layout_get, info, and styles_list, the agent has no signal for choosing this tool over those. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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