List sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the semantic role of sections and the fact that the returned identifiers feed create_draft/update_draft. It does not disclose return shape or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the cross-reference to consumer tools. Every clause 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, annotation-rich list tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the key downstream use of section_id. The only mild gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned list, which an agent might want before formatting results.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the loose hostname matching and the default-to-first-publication behavior. The description adds nothing about the publication parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the publication's sections') and immediately disambiguates by defining what a section is ('the categories a post can be filed under'), distinguishing it from the tag-related siblings. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 second sentence gives an explicit trigger — call this to obtain the section_id required by create_draft and update_draft — which is strong routing guidance to consumer tools. It lacks an explicit 'when not to call' or a statement about alternatives, so it falls just short of the top band.

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