get_section

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns structured content (headings, paragraphs, etc.) but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication, size limits, or error handling. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action and resource, second describes return types. No redundant words, front-loaded with essential 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?

For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return types adequately. It lacks details on error cases or structure format, but given low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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, already documenting spec and section with examples. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the burden.

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 tool retrieves the content of a specific section from the PDF specification, listing the types of content returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_structure (which likely returns only the outline) and search_spec (which searches across sections).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving full section content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_structure (for structure) or get_definitions (for definitions). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, though the purpose is clear enough to make an informed choice.

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