onenote_list_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: results include nested section groups, and omitting a notebook targets all notebooks. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about pagination or result volume.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope distinction and the nested-group behavior are packed in without redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: the two scopes and the nested-group inclusion. Only minor gaps remain (identifier format, read-only nature).

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 0% and the sole parameter has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, conveying that notebook_id scopes to one notebook while its absence means all notebooks. It stops short of giving the identifier's format or where to obtain it.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List sections") and clarifies the two possible scopes: one notebook or all notebooks. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like onenote_list_pages or onenote_list_notebooks, but the resource being listed is unambiguous.

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 phrase "either in one notebook or across all notebooks" implies how scope is selected, which hints at usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use onenote_list_notebooks first to find a notebook_id). Usage must be inferred.

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