everhour_get_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read ('Get details'), which is transparent about its non-mutating nature. However, it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, response format, or whether the section is scoped to a project, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant words; every word earns its place.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention what 'details' are returned or any edge-case behavior (e.g., 404 handling), and sibling tools like `list_all_sections` are not referenced for context, leaving slight gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter `id` described as 'Section ID'. The description confirms 'by ID' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 details') and resource ('specific section'), with the method being 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `everhour_list_all_sections` (which lists all) and `everhour_create_section` (which creates).

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 usage when you have a specific section ID and want its details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like `list_all_sections` or how to obtain the ID. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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