Get section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not specify the return format or error behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action and scope with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.

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 one-parameter getter, the description adequately covers the core function and parameter values. The main gap is the lack of return format detail, especially since no output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity reduces the impact of this omission.

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 0%, and the description helps by listing the allowed enum values in prose, adding the context that these are sections 'of the resume.' However, it mostly restates the schema's enum and adds no additional detail about parameter semantics beyond that.

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 'Return' with a clear resource 'one section of the resume' and enumerates the four possible sections. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary and search_by_skill, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 clearly establishes the use case: fetching a specific named section (work, education, skills, projects). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_summary or search_by_skill, so it lacks a 'when not to use' statement, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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