get_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates that this is a read-only 'Get' operation requiring a completed analysis, and describes the content for each section. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid section name), authentication requirements, or return structure. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not rich.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a concise bulleted list of valid sections and their contents. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description still gives a good sense of what will be returned by describing each section's content. The sibling context (analyze_repo, check_status, get_summary) clarifies its role. It is complete enough for an AI to understand when and how to invoke it, though it stops short of explaining pagination or formatting details.

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 schema already describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing valid section values with aliases and explaining the content of each section, which goes beyond what the schema's generic parameter description provides.

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+resource: 'Get a specific analysis section from a completed Revibe analysis.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_summary (which returns the whole summary) and check_status (which checks status). The explicit list of available sections further clarifies the scope.

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 clearly implies the tool is used after an analysis is completed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_summary or check_status. The list of sections provides strong context for what can be fetched, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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