mediawiki_get_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: omitting section returns TOC, section=0 is intro, format options (wikitext/html), and the nature of the return value. This supplements the annotations well.

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 divided into clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It's concise yet comprehensive.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter behavior, and differentiation from siblings. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant usage context: explains conditional behavior (omit section for TOC, section=0 for intro, default format). This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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 that the tool retrieves page section structure (TOC) or specific section content. It uses specific verbs like 'get' and 'retrieve' and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mediawiki_get_page' which handles full page content.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'User asks what sections does X have, show table of contents, get the Installation section'. It also explicitly states what NOT to use it for and directs to the appropriate alternative, which is excellent guidance.

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