get_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description aligns with these by framing the action as a 'Fetch' and does not contradict the annotations. It adds little beyond the annotations and does not describe errors or return behavior, though an output schema exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and contains no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

The output schema and rich annotations cover return values and safety, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, for a tool with two required parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, the relationship between 'title' and 'section' remains unclear, leaving the description minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 the lack of parameter explanations. It partially clarifies that 'section' can be an index or exact section title, but the role of the required 'title' parameter is left implicit. Additionally, saying 'or' while both parameters are required creates ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('one section') as well as the selection mechanism ('by section index or exact section title'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_toc or get_page.

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 a single section, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. The usage context must be inferred from the wording.

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