List project sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is 'in display order' and provides gids, indicating a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, safe, or describe the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns section names or only gids). The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 very short and to the point – one sentence with two clauses. It is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading an action verb ('Lists sections...') rather than starting with a noun phrase. Still, it earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output order, and a hint about the return value (gids). However, it does not fully describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns just gids or objects with names), leaving some ambiguity. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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% for the single parameter, with a detailed description already in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema already covers it well.

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 title 'List project sections' and description 'Sections of a project in display order' clearly indicate the tool lists sections of a project. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like section_reorder by specifying the output is gids needed for reordering. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' in the text, relying on the title.

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 implies usage context by stating the output is needed for section_reorder, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., section_create, section_update). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is implied but not clearly stated.

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