get_story_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get one section' and does not mention whether the section content is returned in full, whether it includes nested components, what happens if the section does not exist, or any side effects. For a read operation this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond the basic action is insufficient.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, though conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent would not know what a section is, how it relates to a story, what the return value looks like, or when to prefer this over get_story_context or get_story. The sibling list suggests a rich domain, and this description does not orient the agent within it.

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 two parameters (storyId, sectionId). It does not explain what a 'section' is, how storyId and sectionId relate, or any format expectations. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one section from a story'), which is clear enough to identify the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_story, get_story_metadata, or get_story_context, so an agent cannot tell what makes a 'section' different from those resources.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_story or get_story_context. The description implies a narrow use case (fetching a single section) but provides no context about prerequisites, relationships to other tools, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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