List SS6 Sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds workflow context (use before fetching) but does not describe the return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. Since 'list' implies a read-only operation, this is minimally adequate but 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 two sentences are efficient: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler 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 description covers the core purpose and usage workflow for a zero-parameter list operation. It does not explicitly state the output format, but the verb 'lists' implies the return of available sections, which is sufficient for such a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details because none exist, achieving the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with a concrete resource ('Silverstripe 6 changelog sections'), and then distinguishes the tool from sibling get-documentation by framing it as a discovery step. This clearly differentiates it from search-changelog and ss-validator.

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 second sentence explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover what documentation is available before fetching with get-documentation.' It names the sibling tool as the next step, providing clear usage context, though it doesn't formally state exclusions.

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