asana_list_project_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without any mention of pagination, ordering, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is a read operation, but the description does not confirm idempotency or safety.

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-loading the core action. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key context without sacrificing brevity.

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 operation, the description should at least hint at the output format or typical use. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what data the response contains. The description could mention that each section has properties like 'name' or 'gid' to provide closure.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage (opt_fields has a description but project_gid does not), the description fails to clarify the required parameter 'project_gid.' It does not specify how to obtain it or what format is expected. The opt_fields parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds no 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'sections of a project,' making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like asana_list_tasks_in_section by focusing on sections rather than tasks. However, it could be more explicit about the scope, e.g., 'all sections within a specific project.'

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 such as asana_list_tasks_in_section or asana_list_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over siblings.

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