list_global_sections

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 openly discloses that the response is a slim summary, lists the exact fields returned, and explicitly warns that the full element tree is intentionally omitted due to size. This prevents the agent from assuming a complete payload and points to alternate tools.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first clause defines the operation and object, the second details the return fields, and the third explains a limitation and directs to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the format of each entry, the intentional omission of the full tree, and the relevant sibling tools for deeper exploration. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. While the schema is empty and there is nothing to document, the description adds contextual meaning by describing the shape of each entry (id, name, slot, element count, type histogram, custom classes), which helps the agent understand what the output means.

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 ('List') and resource ('reusable global sections'), and precisely defines the scope (Header, Footer, shared content blocks) and output type (SLIM summary only). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the drill-in sibling tools by stating that the full element tree is not returned.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: to list global sections in summary form. It also provides explicit alternatives for deeper inspection ('drill in with get_global_section, search_global_section_elements, or get_global_section_element'), giving the agent actionable guidance on choosing between related tools.

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