get_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'id' is preferred over 'name', which adds some context, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and to the point with two sentences, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential parameter guidance efficiently, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning by explaining that 'id' or 'name' can identify targets and that 'id' is preferred, but it doesn't fully clarify the structure of the 'items' array or how multiple sections are handled. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('sections from Todoist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sections_list' or 'get_projects', which suggests it might retrieve specific sections rather than listing all 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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning that either 'id' or 'name' can be used to identify targets, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sections_list' or other retrieval tools. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are included.

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