get_users_hidden_by_section

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

The annotations already convey that the operation is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about pagination: default limits of about 10 when omitted, maximum caps around 250, and clamping of higher values rather than rejection. This extra context helps an agent predict the tool's behavior beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and logically structured: a summary line, the endpoint, and a bulleted parameter list. The pagination explanation is the longest section but is justified because it explains important default and clamping behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 required 'section' parameter is not explained, and there is no indication of what sections are available or what 'hidden items' refers to. The description does not clarify that this is the authenticated user's hidden items, and 'extended' is a black box. Even though an output schema exists, the missing context prevents an agent from confidently making the first request.

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 Args block gives each parameter a one-line description, but many are unhelpful for constructing a request. 'section: Path parameter' is redundant with the schema and does not say what values are valid, while 'extended' and 'type' are left vague. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide enough meaning for the required parameter and key filters.

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 opens with 'Get hidden items.' and provides the exact endpoint GET /users/hidden/{section}, which makes clear that this tool retrieves the user's hidden items for a specified section. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_users_hidden_dropped or list_users_hidden_progress_watched.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of the corresponding write tool (create_users_hidden_by_section) or the scope (e.g., authenticated user). An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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