asana_get_project_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get sections in a project', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective usage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This minimal structure is appropriate for a straightforward tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of sections, error formats) or behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to compensate, which it fails to do.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters: 'project_id' and 'opt_fields'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for 'opt_fields' or constraints on 'project_id'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'sections in a project', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_get_project' or 'asana_get_project_statuses', which also retrieve project-related data, leaving room for potential confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'asana_get_project' for broader project details. This lack of context could lead to misuse or redundant tool calls.

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