get_global_section

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses the compact-tree output shape, the per-line format, and the 3-5x token saving versus raw JSON. It does not cover pagination or limits, but explains the tradeoff against the raw option.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose then format then recommended use. Every sentence earns its place, including the dense but purpose-relevant line-format legend.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly shoulders the burden of describing the return format via the per-line legend, and the raw parameter is covered in the schema. Complete enough for an agent to call it, though edge cases like empty sections or very large trees are unaddressed.

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 100%, with both global_section_id and raw fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the compact format does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 (get), a singular resource (one global section), and the output representation (COMPACT tree), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_global_sections. 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?

Explicitly names a use case — 'learn how a real Header/Footer/block is composed before building your own' — which routes the agent toward the tool for pre-build reference. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a direct alternative, but the context is clear.

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