Get form sections

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the reference mislabels embed/offset/limit as body parameters while the actual GET uses query parameters, and there is no request body. This prevents an agent from constructing an incorrect request.

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 front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, then gives the critical query-vs-body caveat. It is compact, though 'Body fields: none' is redundant after 'no GET body' and 'See C05' is cryptic without local context.

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 read-only GET with one required path parameter and optional query parameters, the endpoint, parameter placement, and pagination note are sufficient to invoke it. There is no output schema, so the return shape is not described, but the tool name and resource make the purpose clear.

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?

The description names embed/offset/limit and clarifies they are query parameters, but it does not explain their meanings or valid values; the query schema supplies only documented names and pagination behavior. The path.formId parameter is implicit in the URL template but not semantically described. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get form sections') and pins it to the exact endpoint GET /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/sections. This distinguishes it from sibling create/modify form-section tools and from other form-related getters without needing the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives such as xmatters_create_a_form_section or xmatters_modify_a_form_section. The read-only intent is implied by 'Get' and the GET method, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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