map_ctd_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the function returns a hierarchy but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. While adequate for a simple mapping, it lacks depth.

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 two short sentences: one defining the purpose and one stating the return value. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the purpose and return value, but it does not specify the format of the returned hierarchy or behavior when the optional submission_type is omitted. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description adds context that the tool maps to CTD sections, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Hence, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool maps a document type or data package to the correct CTD/eCTD module and section, using the verb 'Map' and specifying the resource. It also mentions returning the full section hierarchy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ctd_completeness, which focus on validation.

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 when needing to determine the correct CTD section for a document, and it notes the output includes the full hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which could be more helpful.

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