get_section_content

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotation: it discloses support for .typ and .tex and explains that the parser is chosen by file extension. It does not discuss error handling (e.g., missing section), but given the read-only nature this is acceptable.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds the format support and parser selection. It is front-loaded, succinct, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the return is the full section content and notes the supported file types. It does not cover edge cases like exact title matching or error behavior, but these are minor given the tool's scope.

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 67% (project_id and section_title have descriptions; file_path does not). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. With coverage above 50%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate for the missing file_path description.

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 the full content of a specific section') and the resource (a section by title), and specifies supported formats (Typst and LaTeX). It implies a distinction from siblings like get_sections (listing sections) and read_file (whole files), but does not explicitly name them.

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 tool description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for section-specific content rather than listing sections or reading entire files, nor does it advise when to prefer local file tools. The only usage context is buried in the project_id parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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